Are Wayspot Candidates Required to Have a Sign? Niantic Thinks So
ScrawnyMeowth1-PGO
Posts: 135 ✭✭✭✭
Last night, a good friend (PoGO username BuzzGUN) had an appeal rejected for a historic cold war missile site. The rejection statement said, "Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! An image of a signboard representing the Wayspot walking path will increase the chances of this nomination getting approved." See the screenshot below:
I believe this is eligible under "A Great Place for Exploration," due to it being a historical and relevant point of interest. This rejection is confusing for a couple reasons. First, the statement doesn't explain how not having a sign makes an object ineligible; it just says that having a sign will "increase the changes." What's more confusing is the fact that nowhere in the criteria pages does it say that Wayspots are required to have a sign. To me it seems that Niantic has rejected this appeal for a reason that is not even related to the acceptance or rejection criteria. This is far from the only example I've seen of an appeal rejected for not having a sign. I had a uniquely designed walking path rejected for similar reasons recently:
Another player, @SailorLynx13-PGO, had an appeal rejected for a signless park. This is especially confusing, because in the Criteria Challenge from last year, Niantic specifically called out signless parks as being eligible: "Parks are definitely eligible Wayspot nominations, even ones without official name stones or signs indicating it as a park but are clearly still parks. (NianticTintino)"
I'm not posting this to debate the eligibility of these three examples; I just want to ask whether they were rejected for the correct reasons. Not having a sign doesn't make something not a place to explore, exercise, or socialize. What do you think?
Comments
Does the "historic cold war missile site" have tours for Tourists?
I love your enthusiasm. Without being able to see more of these nominations, I'm going to tell you what I see:
1) a piece of concrete on the ground with worn off paint
2) a sidewalk
3) a tree with a sign reminding people to pick up their dog's poop
From my own personal perspective, 2 and 3 don't meet any criteria: exercise, be social, explore. 1 could meet criteria if it is actually what you claim it is. But if all there is to look at is that concrete slab, then I don't think it really meets the explore criteria. The idea of having a sign would be to explain what the thing is. If the city or local government has not put up anything to explain how this place is important to the local community, then I have my doubts that it is.
When Tintino clarified that parks don't need signs, they need to actually be parks. What you show in photo #2 is just a lawn with sidewalk.
The idea of having a sign would be to explain what the thing is.
Nominations 1 and 3 both had URLs in the supporting text to prove that they are what they say they are. Nomination 2 was submitted as a unique walking trail, which you can see from satellite view. It was made clear to normal reviewers and Niantic appeal reviewers that these are legitimate points of interest and the submitters didn't just make up stuff. Like I explained though, my main point in this post was to ask whether or not it's right to reject a nomination for not having a sign.
Oh I got this rejection, too!
I even mentioned the clarification that parks do not have to have signs in my appeal statement:
Appeal Statement
These mini parks which give "Park Village" its name meet the criteria as a place to exercise as shown by the pathway and be social as shown by the benches. This one in particular also meets exploration criteria for the pollinator garden with its labelled plants which are educational. The labels were not present in Street View when I submitted this nomination, but they are now. It was rejected originally under "other rejection criteria" which I feel is wrong as I explained above, "private residence or farm" which is clearly not accurate if you look at Google maps, and "natural feature" which the labels and the bench show it is not. I included the link in my supporting information to the AMA where it was stated that parks do not have to have signs if you can identify when you have arrived, which you can here, and I used the name of the street it is on as the title in the absence of a place name sign. Thank you for reconsidering this nomination.
And I had linked the ama in my supporting information:
For the haters who want to hate on the nomination photo, here it is. But the issue is that the rejection says it needs a sign. And the snarky suggestion to review the content guidelines. I have been BEGGING for criteria clarifications for years!
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1sOtNgYY9fB3JZSWvrU3dX_0GC1omTagSsDp98GnL-R2FW3gLdKSCnN9HzeEMjDOMpWoKNE5ftQqI-kKMoXqaSsHrsFqKG2i1By4pg3I=s0
There have several reports of this cut and paste phrase cropping up in appeal rejection emails. What is written in the email should in my view give you an understanding of why it is rejected and whether it’s worth trying again.
It’s really not helpful to use this particular phrase especially as like other instances I have seen it’s not relevant - there is no walking path I can see that it is meant to be about improvement but it tends to not have any proper context so it becomes an irritant.
Sigh…..
One day we will hopefully get feedback that it is helpful to the wayfinder nominating.
On the other hand, I just had an appeal for an informational sign about a very rare plant in a botanical garden (Wollemi pine, one of the first in Europe) rejected for being "just a regular tree", even though the main picture shows the info sign (with a lot of information about the plant, not just its name).
Niantic appeal reviewers don't seem to have a better grasp on guidelines than the average reviewer.
I have one rejection like that too. A man made wind shelter definitely doesnt need a sign.. A friend got one approved further up on the mountain.
And one day later, I had an appeal rejected for the most ridiculous reason yet: the nomination is on the property of a hotel. The hotel is tagged on Google Maps, OSM and every other resource in existence. I linked the hotel's website in my appeal. Yet, Niantic's own reviewers rejected in because "it's located on private residential property".
Seriously, I can't even see any difference between appeals and regular reviews in terms of quality.
@NianThib @NianticTintino-ING @NianticAaron
I just had another appeal rejected for this non-existent reason. This is another signless park, which according to your criteria clarifications should be eligible. Not only did I use a physical anchor to nominate the park, by taking a picture of the swing I was able to show that this is a place where people come to hang out and play. Appeals should be the final say in Wayspot eligibility, and it's beyond frustrating to have waited 5 months for my nomination to be rejected for a reason that's not even part of the criteria.
Is it an official park? Signless parks are eligible, but this isn't obviously a park rather than just open space. Did you provide a link to a local authority web site to show this is an official park and not just a bit of odd ground? If it isn't an official park consider nominating the swing/marker separately.
I encouraged them to post here, but i just saw an appeal rejection which said:
"This nomination ... is a good feature without a sign... An information sign which represents the feature would greatly increase the odds of the nomination being eligible."
Those of you trying to make this about the poi, it isn't. It is about the sign. Niantic appeal reviewers think a sign is required.
Here it is...
I also had this (man-made) pond rejected with similar reason, so I tried to resubmit it with a different text and supporting photo, but the resubmission was rejected by the automated filter a day later...
Niantic 2015 - Nah, **** you need a sign!
Niantic 2021 - We encourage submissions that bring people together to socialise, connect each other in smaller local spaces that highlight something about your community.
Niantic 2023 - Nah, **** you need a sign!
I got 2 that seem more cut and dry.
First is my dad's appeal for a waterfall on a hike along the Blue Ridge Parkway. I'm pretty sure they clarified over a year ago large natural features, such as waterfalls, don't need signs.
And then my own for a dog park at a nearby apartments. While it has no sign, it does have one of those doggy clean up signs, a bench, and is fenced in with a gate.
Niantic: You need a sign
Me: *Submits sign*
Niantic: This is a generic open space
Some of these rejected wayspots look eligible, some not. For something like the Missile Control Site, it can be hard to get a good photo of something like this, but I think it should be eligible. I note that the site is mentioned on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nike_missile_sites and this can be a good thing to mention in the supporting information.
I'm far more likely to accept a not-so-obvious submission if it has good supporting information about its location and why it is important. That having been said, I am but one reviewer and many others seem to take any excuse to reject portals..
As I said previously, the purpose of this discussion isn't to debate whether these meet the criteria. Of course they're all iffy nominations, that's why everyone here appealed them. The question we're all asking is whether or not they were rejected for a legitimate reason.
Same generic text. Unfortunately no signboards available at this fireplace which truly is a place worth visiting.
@ScrawnyMeowth1-PGO also had an appeal recently ACCEPTED for a waterfall without a sign. That is awesome, but why are reviewers reviewing differently?
Ideally a submission has an 'anchor point' for the submission, which is often a sign. Generally natural features and parks needed an anchor point to accepted.
Niantic have since said parks and green areas don't necessarily have to have an anchor point but good luck trying to get anyone to accept it during voting or even in appeals.
Saying that I can see why the examples given were rejected. The pictures are probably good examples of why anchor points are preferred
This rejection even takes time to tell me it can be eligible 🙄 but a signboard will help.
Totally ludicrous
(just so you know Ambassadors are personally aware of the issues 😎)
Captain Dopy strikes again :)
Holy goodness, the picnic area rejection above is indeed totally ludicrous.
How on earth is one meant to "increase the chances" of approval when the chance increase is factor of less than one?
because i would never know this is a picnic area or recognize this spot without the sign (sarcasm)
in the past i have had niantic accept similar unsigned picnic areas on appeal. what is going on with the new group of reviewers?
I do wonder if the part of the world where this message is coming from put signs up for everything. In the UK we are trying to cut back on unnecessary signs and infrastructure as they are now recognised as wasteful, and sustainability is important, but we have a long way to go.
And we dont do pergolas and gazebos much as we prefer to picnic in the rain 🤣
Must be more infuriating for you to have this message, since you know, you are an ambassador and can complian directly lmao
Amd yet, ironically, when I have seen gazebos, they are so hard to get through lol