It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Not on private ground
And this one at a walking path...
I see no reason to reject them too, what were the rejection reasons?
The garage looks eligeble, maybe you cant verify its location?
The trailmarker is luck based
I just posted about a trail marker that is similar and it was rejected for it being a naturally occurring object and not man-made and also for not being pedestrian accessible. How is a hiking trail marker with little hikers on it anything BUT pedestrian accessible?
Murals on a garage are gray areas. A number of people focus on the artistic quality, which would make it eligible. However, we need to consider that a garage door can open at almost any time, with minimal warning and vehicles coming out, as a result, many people might think that it doesn’t have safe pedestrian access.
Your trail marker is totally fine for me. If you use the new wording of the criteria is totally fine, if you use the old wording of the criteria its totally find, too, because there is the trail name clearly written down, so no further discussion or investigation for eligibility is needed. For candidates like this the problem is simply: there are to many m0r0ns within the reviewers who dont know, that exercising and exploring is a big criterion, or they dont accept this consciously, because wayspots like these dont fit their personal playstyle....
So from own expierience, Germany too: the probability to have a fully eligible hiking trail marker in a single try accepted is lower than 50%.... the closer they are to civilisation, the lower the chances, although the location can be better verified and so on. My record: 14 attempts for a fully eligible trail marker. (it was by far not the worst marker I submitted xD)
Garage door murals are complicated. I don't want to judge it only with a single picture. The supporting picture is needed to find a well-founded statement about this doors eligibility.
Btw: if you are using telegram .... german wayfarer group: https://t.me/wayfarerdach
The garage looks like private residential property to me, and it's not clear if there's safe pedestrian access. The supporting picture would have to prove both of these, what did you submit for that?
We would need to know more specific about the mural on the garage door. But it does appear the garage door is part of private residential property.
Directional signs are not eligible. These should not be misconstrued as trail markers.
It is a trail marker: https://www.stadt-stein.de/erleben/ausfluege-rundgaenge/erlebnisweg-wallensteins-lager/
That is what you claim, but it still looks nothing more than a directional sign, which are not eligible.
Seriously? Did you open the link? Did you read that page?
In the near future, I would like to see Niantic do the following in order to fix inaccurate rejections:
* Anyone who gives a 1* must give a reason on why they have it a 1* in order for them to advance to the next submission
* The detailed reasons for the rejections must be shown to the submitter
* The submitter must be given a chance to appeal a rejection if they can prove that whomever gave their submission a 1* gave an incorrect reason for rejection
Sending unmoderated reviewer comments to submitters in official Niantic emails would be a disaster.
Allowing submitters to appeal their rejections would be almost as much work for Niantic as reviewing all the submissions themselves, which was already found to be unworkable.
That should be tied to some measure like: if you appeal a rejection and it's proved that it's right, then you lose all your nominations for three months and you must take an exam to nominate again.
We've seen too many times people claiming abuse and that their nomination have been wrongly rejected with obvious bad nominations that we know that such appeals could overload the system otherwise.
If not that, then what would you suggest to fix this issue? Curious to know, is all.
And we have people abusing the voting system.
So what is the solution then? Your suggestion would definitely deter people from voting, imo.