Niantic is reviewing the oldest stuck nominations, but it's pure randomness ...

Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

We see now, that Niantic clears the queue. We had lots of nominations from summer 2020 stuck in queue or in voting now for more than two years, and during the last few weeks something happens there. Since few folks and i made a big submission tour at June 23rd and 25th back then, we get now daily messages .... and those results are horrificly bad:

  • Niantic staff mass rejects legit hiking trail markers
  • what happens to historic border markers seems to be pure randomness too .... I don't know the fate of all the 3 dozens of submitted examples, because some of the involved submitters are inactive now, but right now only 3 nominations were accepted.

So what do do with this?

We can't appeal all the stuff. That would be way to many necessary appeals ....

Examples following (pictures need to be approved)


  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This one has the forgotten supporting statement, but nethertheless .... the description should be enough because trail names are given there ....

    location: 50.906085,11.614214


    location: ~ 50.896855,11.6461888

    location: ~ 50.891902,11.6482228

    Those wooden signs are obviously hiking trail markers, and so they are fulfilling the exercising criterion without any doubt. Maybe it's a bit confusing for foreigners, that it's not usually in Thuringia and Saxony to write the trail names on the signs, but instead of that we have these color codes, that stand for trail names.

    White-color-white always indicate official trails.

    For example white-red-white is the route of a 100km trail:

    It even has the marker symbol in it's logo. It's also called "Mittlere Saalehorizontale" (literally: middle Saale horizontal) because it's not at full altitude of the valley surrounding the town Jena.

    So there is another route, that is at full height, called "Obere Saalehorizontale" (literally Upper Saale horizontal), that is on top of the cliffs - it's marking is white-blue-white .... and it's also used by another trial, that crosses the region, called the Feengrotten-Kyffhäuser-Weg - this one is also on it's full route depicted by white-blue-white.

    In the examples above we have also white-yellow-white markings. These are recommended 2nd order trails for shorter hiking trips, or sometimes approach roads to the big long distance trails.

    That might sound confusing, but using it it's really simple, because the symbols are not only on the sign posts. The color codes also appear on lots of rocks or trees at the side of the path. So you can be sure to follow the right path... (because sometimes appear new forest roads out of nowhere)

    In the end all of this complicated stuff doesnt seem to be the problem, because the examples above have also a trial with written down name: Novalisweg. Having a named trail there was necessary in OPR, but not afterwards ....

    So what's the problem here?

    Maybe the outdated criteria references in the supporting statement? That's not our fault. That was the state of the art back then. That these nominations stay in queue/voting for years is Niantics fault ....

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That's also something I don't understand - both of these stones are historical border markers, most likely roughly the same age (16th or 17th century), and same level of (un)importance (border between old villages). Why is one of them accepted and one of them rejected?

    Bunch of stones, where I don't know, what happened to them, is this kind:

    After two years I don't know, who exactly submitted them, but texts were all similar to this one:

    Niantic decided to reject hthe appeal for this one, but now one of the others appeared:,11.637247&z=17&pll=50.90639,11.637247

    (we submitted roughly 261-65, few numbers of the 70s exist, and then roughly 312-320)

    Two more accepted by Niantic, but somehow also a community review still happened, because this one has a given rejection reason:

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticOtoStar @NianticLC @NianticAaron

    Could we please solve that stuff for the HA stones somehow coordinated and hopefully fast? Reason is, that there are a bunch of problems, that will cause a lot of chaos .....

    The point is, that these stones are for sure wayspot worthy, because we were wrong with the inscriptions 2 years ago. They are way more important than we thought:

    The general rule for these 2-letter-inscriptions of historical border markers is, that the 1st letter indicates, which kind of feudal fief it is, and the 2nd letter is for the specific name of it.

    Back then we identified the HA the following: H for "Herrschaft" (low level fief like a barony) and A for "Altlobeda" (a nearby village, today part of Jena, that had a castle and in early medieval times an own noble house). For the backside's GW: we thought that G is "Gemeinde" (simply parish or village) and W is Wöllnitz, another village that is nowadays also part of Jena.

    What it really is:

    HA means "Herzogtum Sachsen-Altenburg" and GW means "Großherzogtum/-fürstentum Sachsen-Weimar", so both fief units are at the level of a duchy or above, and so without any doubt historical important.


    So we are roughly there, and according to the other wiki-article for Sachsen-Altenburg you can see, that the part with "Roda" from the map above is an exclave of Sachsen Altenburg.

    Funfact: you can see Gotha and Coburg in this map. Englands house Windsors name is Saxony-Coburg-Gotha because Queen Victoria married Duke Albert von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha ....

    What will now cause the chaos:

    • there is not only this set of summer-2020-submissions. 2 weeks ago we were there again and submitted them again ....
    • when Niantic now accepts single stones and others not ..... for lots of these stones I wont be able to have an overview about which of our latest submissions are now duplicates, and which not, because:
    • the new submissions have better texts, but in 2020 we were able to identify the numbers of the stones with 310 and above, but not now. Reason is, that the numbers are highly weathered, and back then we could split our group of 5(?) people, everyone looked at a different stone, and so we could figure out some numbers and make conclusions for the remaining stones. For the latest attempt .... with two persons not possible.
    • the nominations back then are two rows of stones (261-279 and 310-320) ..... now we found a third row with 301-308 .... further I know, that the latest submission set is not complete. Few stones are few metres in the woods and not directly next to the forest road. So I'm sure, that we missed at least one in the 261-279 row ....
    • the submissions there are all remote submissions, because network there is only 1 bar LTE, so even the map with the pins doesnt load there, but it's enough to play there. so the locations are reconstructed with the meta data of the pictures, this way:

    No264, which was accepted by Niantic staff, is 15m off from our latest submission. So for the conditions that is a good precision imho. No279 from the latest submission set is online by upgrade. Checked location there, it's highly accurate.

    So ..... I guess the least chaos and confusion would be the following:

    1. Niantic staff approves all the old submissions from 2020, except the No279. They are easy to find on the map: use 264 as starting point, 3 are nearby in western direction, and then half a dozen is east of it (between 265 and 279 are few stones missing). Similar for 310+ stones. Use 314 as a starting point. I guess only one or two are in western direction, and then all others are east of it.
    2. I would then double check with the new submissions and I could go there to check location accuracy and maybe deliver geotagged photos, if something is very inaccurate.
    3. text edits via forum to introduce the texts with the duchies.
    4. the row with 301-308 of the latest submission set can be done later. There are no problems or overlaps.

    map for orientation reasons, markers are for the latest submissions.

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,354 ✭✭✭✭✭


    as i contributed many many historical boundarystones: why would you get any special treatment?

    i had dozens and dozens of rejects in the last 3 years, over the years they turned into acceptance, as reviewers got more educated and found out that these landmarks are very historical important objects, and of course, are an ideal candidate for a wayspot: they get you outside and walking in the woods.

    again; is is neccessary that a Niantic Official has to be involved here?

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes they are now working on 22 June 2020 time.

    No consolation but I did have a trail marker approved ….far less impressive than detailed info on some of those shown above.

    still waiting for 2 more from that date …. Let’s see how they go.

  • BitKloepplerin-INGBitKloepplerin-ING Posts: 80 ✭✭✭

    Yes, it is necessary.

    GriffardNiantic wrote (April 2022):

    " ...Please check our stance on the below scenarios:

    a) A marker with the trail name on the trail <- Excellent (Correct)

    b) A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good (Correct)

    c) A marker with no trail name on the trail <- Good (Correct)

    d) A marker with no trail name on an open green space area <- Good enough (Correct)

    e) A marker with no trail name on the street <- Not Good (Correct) ..."

    All of the trailmarkers of @Raachermannl-ING are markers with the trail name on the trail <- Excellent (Correct).

    Not just one single trail - all of them are junctions of more than one trail.

    And Niantic rejected these trail markers with trail name on the trail.

    Does Niantic know their own rules?

    Niantic rejections are always without rejection reasons.

    I (and other wayfarers) have reported that bug. And I'm still waiting for any answer.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,520 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think we should be able to save/bank appeals. And we should be granted 1 appeal for every month we submitted something (with some kind of cap so you don't hasve more appeals than nominations).

    With this scheme, if you started nominating wayspots in June 2020, you could have 26 appeals.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In this bunch of submissions of that week 5 persons were involved. I prepared all the texts and so on back then, but I dont have access to the wayfarer accounts yet. One person moved far away, another one is inactive now .....

    So i could solce only parts of that with appeals .... and honestly speaking: I have more important stuff for appeals. Community notice boards for example - no chance in the community reviews, but 100% acceptance rate after appealing. Those are wayspots in the civilazation - that help me more than the stuff in the woods.So better investment for rare appeals.

    Especially since we here would overturn Nia decisions by appeals .... that's ridiculous.

  • BitKloepplerin-INGBitKloepplerin-ING Posts: 80 ✭✭✭

    Good idea.

    Just wait.

    I appealed "b) A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good (Correct)".

    And niantic rejected that appeal. Telling me "the object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria"

    Your idea doesn't work.

    Even if I could really have 5*12 appeals.

    We need capable reviewer.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 748 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've been purposely NOT using my available appeals, as I've got a pair that I'm far more interested in getting through than anything else that's been rejected since. But they've been lingering for months in the appeals, while the Niantic staff slowly pushes through their self-created backlog (due to them NOT fixing the appeal-a-day bug in timely fashion).

    I could easily resubmit either remotely, but the Wayfarer reviewers somehow don't understand how the "golf driving range" is a place for exercise, nor how my non-duplicate historic artifact slash local marvel is historically relevant to the local community and qualifies under "adventurous exploration".

    For the most part, my local area gets reviews through quick enough that resubmissions are MUCH faster than appealing, and it's a rare thing where I know I can convince Niantic staff easier than regular reviewers. But for y'all that have months+ between nomination and approval? I feels for ya.

    I know that Niantic has had occasional things like "OPR Live" where, for a fee and only in person, Niantic staff would do things like immediately review your most recent nominations and/or re-review rejections of your choice; and @NianticTintino has recently announced a Twitter-based contest where some of the prizes included fast-tracking of appeals. I just wish that such things were not necessary, and that Niantic staff would put a somewhat smaller priority on those appeals put in during that "daily appeal" window, sigh.

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,354 ✭✭✭✭✭

    you can wait until there is christmas and easter on the same day.

    Niantic has told us so many things here, and didnt even apologise for not giving any answer. It seems like theres an "Exit Stage Left"-Mentality.

    Yes, the "Person/s" that is reviewing for Niantic has no clue, it rejected my Trail Marker in the woods with "cannot find the location". Even a beginner learns that you do not reject a trailmarker in the woods because you cannot see it on google maps.

    Yes, telling Niantic this HERE isnt doing anything. They are largely ignoring the things that are happening here. Maybe you could use the Pokemon Go-Ingame Support! Maybe just try sending it via the Chat-Button on wayfarer. They are doing everything to navigate you to obscure Chatbots that will do nothing but C/P.

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 905 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Does Niantic know their own rules?


  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    because there is already "special treatment" for those, because they are stuck in the system for years now?

    We are talking about trail markers and historical border markers. here. All these trail markers are clearly fulfilling the criteria.

    All these trail markers are clearly fulfilling the criteria. Niantic staff approved also some of them.

    For trail markers it's also not special treatement, because those are without any doubt wrong staff decisions, and the forum staff should look at thaht and find those employees, who are the root of this. Point is, that there are still lots more open, and I dont want to get more useless rejections. So I want correct and competent decisions for Nia votes.

    For the historical border markers ..... for those the rules arent as clear as for trail markers, so I wouldnt expect to have those with lower importance all accepted by someone from the other side of the ocean. But the thing, that I'd like to expect is some kind of similar results for similar candidates. And that's simply not the case.

    Further I expect Niantic to investigate WHY all these candidates there close to each other are stuck for so long, and not only curing the symptoms by slowly clearing the queue.

    ... and that's why I'd like to take a shortcut for this numbered rows of completely similar border markers, except for the incrementing number. Treating them all the same is less work for Nia, less work for me.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    got message from a **** about his rejection wave:

    3 rejected, 1 acepted trail markers. Those markers are from the same kind like those from my earlier post ...

    If Nia wants to lokk at these again: IIIIKoala-PGO .... (the 4x I at the beginning are capital i's)

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Also interesting:

    border marker No.264 was accepted few days ago.,11.637247&z=17&pll=50.90639,11.637247

    But how does it look like in PoGo?

    The left picture is No.263, the right picture is No.262 ....

    Those are obviously not hte same Stones. Different vegetation and trees, different deep into the ground, one of them is obviously crooked ....

    I admit, that the number is not readable at all of these stones and that this can become confusing for reviewers (community as well as Nia staff), in that case it's nethertheless obvious, that No264 is really No264, and the other two stones are different obviously

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would like to know what exactly happens in this process.

    As they been the system for over 810 days they presumably have been reviewed by a number (not bothered what the number is) of reviewers for that area.

    Are the votes that those reviewers recorded taken into account at all? Are they aware of the votes ( which would seem sensible) so they would just be adding to that by agreeing to accept reject or duplicate.

    .Those reviewers voted in good faith and may have been in broad agreement to accept or to reject/ low score. Are all of them losing out on an agreement if someone just says duplicate.? Infind it discouraging if the effort I put into a local review that is unlikely to be resolved for years is going to be ignored

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 22

    Good question. But for the wrong duplicates from above the few reviewers from the 800 days can't be taken into account - the accepted wayspot is only few days old. Community reviewers can't have done this.

    The trail markers are a different thing, but those border markers with the numbers are roughly every 100m. It's like 5 existing, then 5 missing, then 3 existing, 5 missing then 20 missing (or far offroad), then 9 existing, and so on ....

    So lots of them are in neighbouring S2Lvl17 cells. That means (according to the community knowledge) that if 1 is in voting, all neighboring cells candidates are blocked and stay in queue. Since not a single one reached a decision during these 810(?) days, lots of these candidates should have 0 community votes.

  • Raachermannl-INGRaachermannl-ING Posts: 1,019 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 22

    Concerning the trail markers ..... Germany has to many noob reviewers so that trail markers are way to often rejected. Main reason why my acceptance rate is damn low, because I'm very stubborn and fighting against this windmill. So for trail markers I would be grateful if the already done community reviews would be neglected. In 80% of the cases there are too many bullsh1t votes involved.

    So it's extra dissappointing, that there are paid Nia employees that arent better than our gratis reviewer noobs ... and in contrast to that we have to read then in this forum, that in other countries trail markers are used as fake objects. And those objects are than small plaques, so way worse than our detailed signposts .... that simply grotesque ...

Sign In or Register to comment.