Are zoo information signs no longer accepted?

Hi everyone, this is my first post here, but I've been submitting wayspots since 2014.

I submitted about 30 wayspots at Skopje Zoo in August, and all of them got rejected.

I appealed one to Niantic, but today I got a rejection on my appeal as well, the reason being that it was "a regular sign" and not culturally significant.

My understanding has always been that informational signs at zoos about the animals housed there were acceptable wayspots, due to them having educational value and encouraging exploration.

Has something changed in the criteria? Are info signs no longer accepted? Should I report all existing info signs as low quality wayspots instead?


  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There could be a number of reasons.

    This is my own opinion.

    I don't go to the Zoo to explore the sign. I go to a Zoo to see the animals, research centres and or activities. That does not mean I don't read the signs. But I can see why some people don't like them as it means they are not a reason to go exploring the zoo. And even if the sign has educational value it is not a reason to go the zoo. People will see the Zoo has a whole.

    Then there is the other part of it. These signs are not unique as one "type" of sign in a local area. That is the zoo has many signs of the same genre in one area. So again this can be down graded as being a common generic sign type for this local area. Yes they carry different information on each sign. But they are common to the area they are in.

    As, no arguement has been made as a place to exercise or socialise. Then the nomination has failed the three eligibility criteria.

    Our role as nominators is to convince the reviewers that our nominations meet at least one of the three criteria. If you have any iota of doubt then you can be sure reviewers will magnify it.

    I am not saying right or wrong. I am just saying why some people may see them differently to other people.

    I would ignore the rejection criteria of not Historically Important. It takes more than one person to reject a POI nomination. And you can often see different reasons given. What I have learnt is to focus on what makes most sense. In this case, I think you put your finger on it, when you said a "regular" sign.

    Does not mean you cannot go again with a new nomination. As the reviewers next time maybe different. But make the nomination in consideration of any feedback you get back.

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Personally I think they are great.

    Pictures are clear, bright. I can see what it is and where it is.

    Maybe, although it's not something I would reject for but some people like to nitpick, your main picture could be straight on and not have a shadow in it.

    As a counterpoint to @rufoushumming-PGO I don't go to a park, museum etc specifically to read the info boards but I will if I'm there and I'd say they encourage exploration.

    It's most definitely not a regular sign and I'm not sure which kool-aid the already reviewers have been drinking recently.

  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Already appeal

  • FireFly73-INGFireFly73-ING Posts: 97 ✭✭✭

    I think the 1st photo should be solely on the bison sign taking up 75% of the space. That way, you can read the sign and it's focused on what you nominated. You can appeal or resubmit but not a fan of the primary photo. Supplemental photo is perfect.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think I am trying to say is address the core problems. I was trying to see why people would reject it. And I posited that it could be the two suggestions. Hmm you know, I don't see it was a counter position. I think you confirmed my theory (thanks). You go to the zoo to see the animals not the signs. I know I know a minor distinction. But if someone were to take that view then you need to counter it correctly the next time you nominate because you do not know if you get different reviewers.

    And I see more than an iota of doubt here which would mean pay attention to these nuances.

    @FBIinformant30-PGO makes a good suggestion as well. Re direct the attention to why the signs are different and unique.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,964 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Based on your rejection reason, it is likely a duplicate of an existing Wayspot.

  • Genly-INGGenly-ING Posts: 6 ✭✭

    Unfortunately all the signs were rejected, regardless of whether I took a photo of just the sign, or the sign plus some of the surroundings, or the sign plus the actual animal. I was sure it was just a couple of biased reviewers at first, but the rejection even on appeal made me question whether these wayspots are acceptable in general.

    I know that "not historically or culturally significant" stands in for any number of reasons for rejection, but the rejected appeal sounds much more to the point: zoo signs do not meet the criteria for acceptable wayspots because they are "regular" signs. So that's why I'm looking for clarification.

    It took me a couple of hours to map out the entire zoo and see which wayspots were already there and which ones were interesting enough to nominate. With over 30 rejections, I also don't fancy going through the appeals process once a month for each of them, that would take nearly 3 years!

  • Genly-INGGenly-ING Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November 7

    Post edited by Genly-ING on
  • Genly-INGGenly-ING Posts: 6 ✭✭
    edited November 7

    Post edited by Genly-ING on
  • The26thDoctor-PGOThe26thDoctor-PGO Posts: 4,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I can see all the others, it's probably frustrating to have so much disparity between rejections and acceptances so I don't blame you.

    For some reason pictures have to go into moderation before the post appears so it seems like your post hasn't gone through it's easier to post images using the paperclip icon :)

  • FireFly73-INGFireFly73-ING Posts: 97 ✭✭✭
    edited November 7

    All the signs at our zoo and the other zoo's I've been too are waypoints. So I find it more shocking your signs were rejected. The signs are educational / informational. I always read them because yes, I'm there to see the animals but I'm also there to learn about said animals. Plus, my kids always read them. Hence, I'd wager you have really bad reviewers where you live who don't understand the acceptance criteria IMHO. I would open up a thread in the Appeals channel and ping the folks at Niantic if you really want to have a formal review. The only thing I can think of is they would likely want the GPS coordinates for each nomination.

  • Genly-INGGenly-ING Posts: 6 ✭✭

    Thanks, that's actually nice to hear!

    I was under the impression that appeals can only be submitted through the Wayfarer website, and only once a month. Do I understand you correctly that it's also allowed to do so through the community forum?

  • FireFly73-INGFireFly73-ING Posts: 97 ✭✭✭
    edited November 9

    Under the "Quick Links", there is a "Support and Feedback" section with multiple threads devoted to appeals of some sort. I've never used it but have seen success with some people who have. Since you have multiple of the same type, it wouldn't hurt to get in touch with someone at Niantic. Worst they can do is say no. If you don't, you can either resubmit or appeal. Both may be successful.

    Otherwise, you are correct. One appeal every 30 days or something like that. That's what I use with a good success rate. Apparently, plaza signs are still hard to pass through nominations and found success in appeals. I've appealed 3 plazas so far (like a small shopping mall / **** mall). Two were approved, 1 is still in appeals. I have one more to appeal this month. And probably more after the rest get decisions. lol.

  • TheDutchestPony-PGOTheDutchestPony-PGO Posts: 40 ✭✭

    I thought there was a German bot network that used the “not historically significant” thing to deny pokestops. I had trail markers denied for the same reason..

    I think they are great POI’s, because when you’re in a zoo you can click on them to see where which animals are.

    If trail markers qualify then I cannot see any legitimate reason to not have these qualified.. I do agree with what said above that the picture needs to be of the sign and not the sign from a distance.

    Maybe you could resubmit 1 or 2 and see if they go through now, haven’t had any denied for that reason for a couple of weeks now.

  • RandomExploit-INGRandomExploit-ING Posts: 892 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This shouldn't have been rejected by reviewers or on appeal.

    The sign itself could be said to encourage exploring but its main thing is its the anchor point for the exhibit.

  • SuperheltenDK-PGOSuperheltenDK-PGO Posts: 4 ✭✭

    I´m not sure what to do here.

    I´m from Denmark, and someone has put 50+ signs from a zoo.

    Now i know it says that the zoo is a great place, but it also says no private buisness.

    So for the sake of waypoints, ill let them through from now on. But i have said no in the past.

    The same goes btw for Tivolis (The biggest here in Denmark), i can see a lot of the waypoints have been accepted. But when you go to Tivoli, there are no waypoints there. So for me that means that Tivoli is a buisness, and therefor should not have waypoints.

    But i´ll accept from now on, and then Niantic will have to tell me if I do something wrong.

  • 1GiraffeToman-PGO1GiraffeToman-PGO Posts: 54 ✭✭✭

    So your logic is park signs are not eligible because you play on the grass not at the sign?

    signs are representing something eligible, you see animals in zoo, but live animals can’t be wayspot, so signs are the eligible item to represent animals. These information are all in tutorial page as long as you read it

Sign In or Register to comment.