I've been thinking that perhaps National Parks should be allowed to be built in unappealing locations as well as appealing ones. National Parks aren't only built in places that are beautiful and appealing to live in. They are also founded in areas that are ecologically or geographically unique. For example, Death Valley National Park is not exactly an inviting place to live. In fact, it's one of the harshest, most extremely unwelcoming places on earth. So I propose that National Parks in Civ VI should also be eligible to be placed in "disgusting" locations such as rainforest, and that they should receive tourism based on the tile appeal's absolute value from zero. National Park placement rules, in general should really be eased up, IMO. There are plenty of situations in which I have three tiles that would make an excellent national park, but the fourth tile makes it ineligible (either because it's an invalid tile, such as water, or because the tiles aren't all within the same city). There are also plenty of times when I'd like to be able to place a national park that has four contiguous valid tiles, but they aren't in the vertical diamond shape. I've compiled some screenshots of annoyingly invalid National Park locations that probably should be valid: Spoiler : Naturalist can't enter mountain tiles, so can't create park on Mt. Everest Spoiler : Can't create a National Park that encompases both tiles of Dead Sea Spoiler : Won't be able to build National Park here because 1 tile is in water There are only a handful of such occurances. I'm sure the community has plenty others.