Please reconsider appeal decision.

PeteC303-INGPeteC303-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭

Waypoint: Acrise Village Sign

Location : 51.13851° N, 1.13603° E

City : Acrise, Folkestone

Country : UK

Hi me again. Please take another look at this please. It is a hand carved sign very unique and greets visitors who are encouraged to explore. It is not generic. Plenty of safe pedestrian access and considering reviewers are accepting the Folkestone one (not my nomination) mine is more visually unique and an artwork of sorts. Thanks.



  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You nomination is situated in the middle of a road junction - there is no "pedestrian access" to the location. In accessability terms, it is the same as being in the middle of a roundablut or traffic island, there is no pedestrian footway to the location. The "Pedestrian Access" rejection reason is correct.

  • PeteC303-INGPeteC303-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭

    Rubbish. I got there fine. It’s not a traffic island. Plenty of green area to stand. I managed it perfectly fine. It’s a rural village. So stop assuming about places you’ve never been.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You got there fine. I've seen plenty of places in exactly the same sort of situation that I could get to without problems. You asked why Niantic might have rejected your appeal for "Pedestrian Access". I'm just giving you the Niantic POV on localities like this - nothing to do with me "assuming about places I've never been too". No pedestrian pathway - "no access".

    Why is this an ineligible Wayspot nomination?

    Pedestrian Access

    Use for nominations that do not have a safe, pedestrian pathway leading to the object. Note that it is not sufficient to be able to access the nomination from a nearby sidewalk. There must be a pedestrian walkway or a trail leading all the way to the object. Remote nominations, such as those on mountain tops or on small islands, are acceptable if they can safely be accessed on foot.

  • PeteC303-INGPeteC303-ING Posts: 763 ✭✭✭✭

    Niantics didn’t reject it for that though did they. They said it was generic which it isn’t. The streetview you show is old and the area has a large green area where the sign stands where you can safely stand.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes - yes they did. One of your photos clearly shows a rejection reason of "Pedestrian Access". Niantic usualy give 3 reasons, only 2 of which are displayed at a time - they cycle through. "Pedestrian access" is there as a rejection reason.

    Once again, you are missing the point. It does not matter that this area has a "large green area where the sign stands where you can safely stand", you still have to cross the road to reach it. It is the same as every other nomination on a traffic island or roundabout. There is no dedicated pedestrian footway to the location, so it fails the Niantic criteria test. Not my criteria, or opinions, or interpretation of the criteria, just the Niantic criteria. So streetview is old? Has a dedicated predestrian crossing been installed to this triangle.? If so, make a photosphere and show it to reviewers. If not, then it is "no pedestrian access" every time.

Sign In or Register to comment.