Understanding rejected greenspace appeal

Can someone please help me understand my rejected greenspace appeal and let me know if you think I should pursue it any further?

This was actually my 2nd nomination ever. Knowing what I know now I would’ve taken better photos and explained it’s use better.

Parks and Outdoor Recreation criteria clarification made me feel it was worth appealing this old rejection because it says a park/recreational area can qualify without signage and supporting evidence should provide evidence recreational use.

My appeal included evidence of recreational community space via county parcel records showing it’s HOA open space and HOA governing documents showing the open space is intended for community enjoyment and recreation.

My appeal was denied as, “an open green space, which are commonly found”, “lacks uniqueness and historical or cultural meaning”.

That’s where I’m confused. It overlooks the 3rd hole golf course pond, the community gathers here for bonfires and pot luck’s, they set up outdoor movies, play cornhole, wiffle ball, badminton, etc. I couldn’t add better photos during the appeal so I’ll add a couple here.

I’ve also had community green space accepted before, which is why I’m trying to understand the distinction.

Would you pursue this further, start a new nomination with better photos/explination or consider it ineligible? I’d like to understand for future nominations, and for reviewing or helping others with similar spaces.

Also, the Criteria and Forum Criteria Discussions Library link provided in my denial doesn’t work. Does anyone know where that information can be located or where any specific guidance on community open spaces could be located?

Attaching the original nomination, appeal and rejection contribution record. I marked out specific location/parcel information since this is a public forum and the space is in my neighborhood.

I can only state my opinion…

For me there is a difference between a park and a “Green Space”.

Even without signage I would expect some sort of fixture to show it is more than just a field.

Picnic Tables.
Sports equipment (Permanent Football Goals etc).

I have seen many people claim that the bit of grass left at a road junction is a green space so I would always Reject them.

This is obviously much more than that so I would not want to Reject but would probably Skip.

It’s not a definite Accept but it’s not a “low quality nomination” so I would definitely try to re-submit.

Is it possible to wait and get a supplemental image when it is being used for an event?

Good Luck

This can be found here

or here

or here
https://wayfarer.scopely.com/new/help/forum-criteria-discussions-library

Is it possible to get one supporting photo where the park is filled with people? It will support your socialize statement. Honestly the foto looks barren

Thank you, I hadn’t thought to submit a picture of it in use. I exclude people from my photos, but I suppose those would be ok in the supporting photos section.

I may try again with a new submission. I’ll wait to see if others comment here. If a majority think it’s worth a new submission, I may give it a try.

Unfortunately, no permanent objects are allowed due to agreements between the HOA and the golf course. The course if very particular about aesthetics. The community can set up tents, bounce houses, etc. but there’s a strict 48 hour rule in which items must be cleared from the space.

I could definitely include a photo of it in use. I’ve never sent a photo with a person in it with my nominations, but I suppose that’s allowed in the supporting photos, so I may try that.

Thank you for the feedback, it helps to see from another’s perspective.

Just to add that people in supplemental images should be OK as long as they are not prominent otherwise could see it as you identifying your nominations.

I created the following using AI to show the point…

Should Be OK…

Definitely Not…

Thank you, that is helpful.

Do you know how I may get an official Scopely member to weigh in on this?
I discussed this with members in the community and they are encouraging me to submit again, but I’m nervous to do that after a rejection and a rejected appeal. If I did another nomination of the same place that’s been rejected twice, and it becomes rejected again, could my account get flagged?
To me, the excitement of a potential new Wayspot in our community doesn’t outweigh that risk.
I encouraged one of them to try nominating but they are worried they would not word it as well with all the supporting documentation.
Am I being paranoid? Locals were becoming excited when I mentioned my initial appeal but I don’t want to continue to pursue it if there could be risk to me. If I was encouraged to try again by a Scopely team member, I would not be as hesitant about it.
Not sure what kind of activity risks flagging an account, but I’m an adamant rule follower by nature, sometimes to my own detriment. :melting_face:

If you are submitting trash repeatedly, this can cause an account to get flagged.

This is not trash. It is a perfectly acceptable POI to be attempting, even if it doesn’t get accepted. You would have no issues from retrying this, with (optionally) different pictures, better text, different supporting information etc. Revising a rejected submission for something that is eligible is normal.

I understand I’m not staff, but I don’t know if you’ll get a staff response :slight_smile:

If you could attach a link or screenshot of the agreement, that might help confirm this is a park area for the community. Or an invitation to a community event there. Anything that confirms it is a park area set aside for community use and not just undeveloped land.

I would also try a different main photo, maybe taken from an entrance or looking along the path. Or focus on if there is a bench overlooking the water?

It helps to have an obvious anchor point for your nomination. However the criteria clarification does say a park can have the pin placed in the middle if nowhere is better.

I definitely think you should try again, it was a good idea and you were a bit unlucky with the appeal.

Adding a link that shows this is recreational space will help