Also the purpose it was built for was for it to be used as a grill pit, it was never anything else it isn’t repurposed… it never was just a concrete ring, it has always been a grill pit, are houses just trees used as housing? How many different ways can you make a circle out of concrete with the purpose of grilling?
Aren’t mass produced benches accepted as picnic areas, why should this not be accepted? The only purpose of this is for a picnic to occur??? A bench doesn’t necessisarily mean a picnic area, a fire pit serves no other purpose than a picnic area.
It even says picnic areas that appear to be permanent like hello???
Picnic areas and tables that appear to be permanent, even if not bolted to the ground like those above, are great places for socialization.
This is by all definitions a picnic area.
Name:
Oxnägården Grillplats
Desc:
Eldstad vid Fotbollsplanen, Tennisbanan, basketplanen och boule banan.
Nah I want my appeal appealed, this is by definition a picnic area which is legible
There is nothing you can call this but a picnic area.
I don’t live within 55km (70km by car/foot) of this place either you need to be within 10km
This was an appeal not a community submission the community usually agrees with these and Trailmarkers but recently a new group of people sent all trail markers and everything for not being ”permanent nor distinct” in my area
There is no pathway to appealing an appeal, but sometimes people who post here will get a new email accepting when the decision was clearly wrong.
What was your appeal statement?
As a person who is not familiar with this style of grill, I would not have recognized this main photo as a barbecue area either. Is this a fair translation of the description?
I have added the appeal statement above if you take a reread. This design is common in sweden, I added an article in my appeal note with what this was to make sure they knew Grillplatser - Hällefors kommun
I saw that you had posted the team’s “Niantic Note” reply, but I don’t see what your “Appeal Notes” message to the team was. That is what I was asking for.
Unless this was your Appeal Statement?
But you said you added an article, so I don’t think that was it.
Not all trail markers will be accepted. It helps to provide proof that they exist and are for an official trail. Without seeing your submissions, sometimes people submit things (like trail markers) without making any effort, which always risks a rejection - never submit with an assumption of it sailing through.
What I am trying to get at is whether the appeals team made a mistake based on the information they were presented to help you make your case. One grill does not make a picnic area.
The submission is likely not permanent or distinct, it is permanent and distinct, it is a place where you can socialise with a group of friends or family over a public campfire pit. This specific one is situated near multiple sports fields such as a tennis court a basket court a football court and a boule court. These types of camping sites are prominent across Sweden to promote outdoor activity. Here is an article to a commuen, this is not located in the commune but to show you what it is if you can’t tell and how they are used and public from my pictures, which I think you can tell. Grillplatser - Hällefors kommun
I can see a rejection on those two as something that could easily happen.
The first one says this is in a nature reserve and has a generic bike sign. Not a named trail and doesn’t look like an entrance.
The second one doesn’t translate well into English, but I found this: Elfviksleden – Wikipedia. It has the look of something not-quite-official, so I can understand a reviewer not taking the time to look at it properly - that one depends a lot on the supporting text etc.
People are trying to offer advise or explanation on why your nomination got rejected. Those are things that you need to address when you are trying to appeal to scopely staff. Scopely staff will make the final verdict. You are free to take the advice or no. If you already appeal the nomination and it got rejected, you can wait several days if scopely want to change their decision, if nothing happen, i am afraid you need to resubmit with better evidence
The vast majority of rejections will be correct, given the submission.
Maybe the POI was simply ineligible, fake, not there etc.
Maybe it was borderline but the submitter made no effort.
Maybe it had problems with the photo etc.
Maybe it would be a good wayspot but no-one could confirm it existed.
Knowing what you, as the submitter, could have done better, is key to improving and resubmitting.
I have added links to the criteria assisting the people reviewing, I have added links to the trails even a map, yet they don’t seem to know, it even got rejected for having codenames as I said it was legible according to the url.
I can understand sometimes why some get declined as once I a man ran in the background of the photo so it was denied for having identifying information, which I find silly, but the criteria says no so, how are you meant to add things in a big city if there are people everywhere. However it was also denied for being not permanent or distinct when it clearly isn’t when people are running on the trail as you could see in the photo.
You have missed my point. One place where you can cook outside is not a dedicated area to have a picnic. I would resubmit this, including the entire area, not just the place you can make a fire.
For example, my latest accepted nomination happens to be for picnic stations
I would never consider submitting just the grill, although it is permanent.
It is not up to me to overturn this appeal decision or not, but I don’t see that the reviewer clearly made a mistake here. I will be muting this topic now. I hope you have success with your picnic area eventually.
Picnic areas and tables that appear to be permanent, even if not bolted to the ground like those above, are great places for socialization.
