Official Local Tourist Attractions Criteria

[+The Snowdog]

I submitted one to this category a while back and had it not just rejected, but unanimously re-rejected (along with a scold to "stop wasting the officer's time") and I am curious as to why. From reading the category page it would seem that the principal criteria is "the official City/Town/Municipal/Regional Tourism URL link to the attraction must be provide" and sure enough the location is on the county's tourism web page. The site is "attractive" enough that it is also an "official" roadside attraction. However, the officers didn't think it qualified. Why isn't it enough that the site be listed by the city/town/municipality/region on their tourism web site? I've submitted several based on that, and up to now all were accepted without hesitation.

[+Max and 99]

9 minutes ago, The Snowdog said:

I submitted one to this category a while back and had it not just rejected, but unanimously re-rejected (along with a scold to "stop wasting the officer's time") and I am curious as to why. From reading the category page it would seem that the principal criteria is "the official City/Town/Municipal/Regional Tourism URL link to the attraction must be provide" and sure enough the location is on the county's tourism web page. The site is "attractive" enough that it is also an "official" roadside attraction. However, the officers didn't think it qualified. Why isn't it enough that the site be listed by the city/town/municipality/region on their tourism web site? I've submitted several based on that, and up to now all were accepted without hesitation.

That category has confused me too. The last one I submitted was only after I found one of yours that had a similar link so I felt I was safe submitting it. 

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but one of mine was rejected because it was an article, not a listing on the tourism site. I don't know how to tell the difference. 

[+Alfouine]

Provide a link from "the official City/Town/Municipal/Regional Tourism URL link to the attraction must be provide"  does not mean it's OK

In this category we are looking only for Tourist attractions only, we do not accept Restaurants, Bars, Gas Station, Mall, Stores, etc..., there is a lot of categories for these.

It should be written in the category description but the leader of the category seems inactive...

And of course we do not accept article, only listing or web page from tourism site

You also have to really explain what happened.

I declined first your waymark with this comment : "It's not a tourism activity, I can call for a vote if you want"

Second submission : You waymark has been declined after a vote with 3 Nay and apparently no YEA, the vote has confirmed why i had declined it first

But you decided to publish it again, third time,  you could understand that we can consider that we waste our time, even if i did not write this comment.

 

This is my point of view.

 

I sent a message to all officers of the category, it can be interesting to have all point of view.

[+The Snowdog]

Well, Alfouine, that is why I was so confused at the rejection of that waymark. Three of my first four submissions to this category were a restaurant (WM1462V), a bar and lounge (WM14C8T), and another restaurant (WM1465J) - and the fourth (WM147J0) is a travel center / gas station with a gift shop and other attractions, pretty much the same thing as the one rejected. All were accepted and published without hesitation (by you!), and I assumed that was because there was a link to an Official Tourist Attraction web site. All of my others are the same way - all had the required link, and all were accepted. You could argue that many of them are not "tourism activities" (how can a mural be a tourist activity?) but they all have the required link and all were accepted - until this one. I still do not understand why - particularly as it is probably the largest tourist attraction in town. I would get it if the category was just "Tourist Attractions" and that would give the officers plenty of wriggle room to argue yes or no, but "Official" Tourist Attractions does not give that freedom; the "official" decision has already been made if they're listed as such on a web site. So I will watch for your reply and some clarification on this category.

Edited November 2, 2021 by The Snowdog