I'm genuinely confused as to why this Wayspot was refused

As per the title, I can see what has been said as to the reason, it just does not make sense, and I'm not sure which is the correct forum area to post this in? Any help much appreciated!


Title of the Wayspot: Old A1 Route Mile Marker

Location: 52.388362, -0.258232

City: Alconbury

Country: England, United Kingdom

Screenshot of the Rejection Email:

Photos to support your claim:

Issues with "Pedestrian access" and yet it's right next to a bus stop and fenced off from the road:

It is in a perfectly safe area of grass at the side of the road.

"Low quality photo" - It was not a sunny day but it's England in the winter. The photograph is at a high resolution and sharp, you can zoom right in, the issue with the engraving legibility is the age of the monument, not the photo.


Additional information:

None, other than I can honestly fail to see how it fails the community guidelines as given, it makes no sense, clear photo and right next to a bus stop for access.

Comments

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think the problem you have is that the footpath is on the other side of the road, and does not lead directly up to the marker.

    If there was no footpath on either side of the road, you could've probably claimed that pedestrians were intended to walk along the verge and used the bus stop as evidence of this, but as the footpath exists, that's clearly the area where pedestrians are meant to walk. As it stands, there's no footpath to the marker, and no safe crossing area to get to the marker (or get back from it without using the bus), so I can see why the appeal was rejected for that reason.

  • Arfski-INGArfski-ING Posts: 5

    That would make sense except that you have to cross the road to get to the bus stop, there is no footpath that either leads to or from it. Surely if it's deemed safe by the local authority to cross the very quiet country B road to catch a bus, I have no idea why a few steps along the grass is now unsafe access. I wonder if they're looking on the map at the 8 lane motorway to one side and think that's the access?

    The marker itself certainly is historic, as it marks the point where the Roman Great North Road and North Road used to join. https://greatnorthroad.co.uk/alconbury-junction

    The broader view:


  • therealMindi-PGOtherealMindi-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    I am not sure if whoever voted for the mentioned rejection criteria should is capable of using the given tools in wayfarer and combine the information.

    neither the foto of the object seems low quality to me (in the real meaning of low/poor quality like not being able to identify the object easily) nor is there no access for pedestrians, as the bus stop shows. being able to touch a wayspot in the end is not a criteria, and will not ever be - for many obvious reasons.

    sure there can be different subjective views on what is low quality and what is safe for pedestrians, but to reject this one seems like a overly high first world standard without the awareness for other ways to do it.

    I am really sorry for your wasted upgrade. there is a real problem with how the voting works.

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭✭✭

    being able to touch a wayspot in the end is not a criteria, and will not ever be - for many obvious reasons.

    Niantic has stated several times that they want people to be able to get within touching distance of Wayspots (vertical placement is not taken into account for this, so if a mural is high up on the side of a building, so long as you can touch the wall it's painted on, even if the painting itself is too high to reach, that's OK), so yes, this will have been factored in when Niantic rejected the appeal. There are certain actions in Ingress that require you to pretty much be stood directly on top of a portal. It's not like Pokémon Go where the 80 metre radius allows you to spin a stop from the next street over.

  • therealMindi-PGOtherealMindi-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    that is pretty interesting. I understood what you wrote and it kind of makes sense to get close to an object, as public access is a criteria. I also judge with it in mind when I vote. but I find it highly doubtful that being able to touch it should be the final criteria. especially as it is not stated like this in the criteria of wayfarer. a hidden criteria like "being able to touch it" would kind of explain why so many people are experiencing problems with the system of wayfarer.

    can you find me a direct source? I would appreciate, but am not sure what exactly to search for in here.

    finally in this special case, the fence shows that one is not supposed to touch the old monument. but it is still there and meant to memorize. there is more that shows a value of the wayspot than this symbolic fence should hold against. aside from the obviously false accusation of a low quality photo.

Sign In or Register to comment.