Why I rarely bother with submissions these days.

So, after driving 350km I get to Camel Soak, and submit the manmade cairn at the top of the rock formation that many people visit on holiday. Then get this rejection for a perfectly valid portal.

You can't appeal, I'm not going back there any time soon, yet Niantic are happy to dump garbage into the portal network from Foursquare.

The system has been awful since it was opened to Pokemon players.

How on earth is this a 'natural feature' or 'seasonal display' seriously....

My last sub was also rejected as a seasonal display even though the ground around it was so trodden by visitors over the years no weeds existed.

Seems only easily accessible, lazy junk gets accepted these days.

So much for exploring.

Below is supporting photo and rejection letter.


  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 841 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, when I think of cairns as potential wayspots, I generally think of something more organized-looking. Maybe that's just my cultural bias, though.

  • BaltiCalling-INGBaltiCalling-ING Posts: 245 ✭✭✭✭

    Your submission was correctly rejected as a natural feature.

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 580 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Same, I've seen some beautiful ones that definitely don't look like a random pile of rocks in the middle of nowhere.

  • AeriTheBOFH-PGOAeriTheBOFH-PGO Posts: 119 ✭✭✭

    I would have accepted that, but I know most people won't. On a lot of remote [named] mountain tops that don't have trigs, there are cairns instead. In fact, many of the trigs here are basically rock cairns with a wooden pole sticking out plus a metal disc mounted on said cairn (but of course those also appear in survey databases).

    As someone who goes out to explore a lot, I have an appreciation for cairns and trigs.

    In this day and age, you would really need to do a good job to sell a rock cairn though - how long has it been there for? Is it a summit marker for a named hill/mountain?

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 447 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 15

    It wasn’t rejected as seasonal, it was rejected as temporary; the two are in the same rejection reason. And yeah, it’s a natural feature because it’s a pile of rocks. Two accurate rejection reasons.

    As for not bothering with nominating, if you don’t know the criteria then I thank you for not nominating these days.

  • Shilfiell-INGShilfiell-ING Posts: 532 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's a man-made construction. The material is rock. Such cairns on remote summits or used as markers by local lore may be eligible if artistically arranged or clearly done for a purpose. The rocks are natural, the pile itself is not. Would you rate an authentic Inukshuk the same way? And yes, I would likely have rejected this one - but I would take a long look at it. Imagine if the perspective was off any this is actually 15 feet high, or if the rocks are bound with a fixative in the center to preserve the formation?

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 663 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A guy I know who has been playing Ingress for years was telling about the days one could get "just about anything accepted". Do we really want to go back to those days? How do we know somebody has not simply put that pile of rocks there to troll people into thinking it's a real cairn?

  • PDSchroeder-PGOPDSchroeder-PGO Posts: 14 ✭✭

    I would have rejected this in a heartbeat. I agree that many garbage nominations get accepted, but I would count this one among them. If there were some form of sign or informational item that explains some significance, it would be a different story, but this looks just like a pile of rocks.

  • mortuus-INGmortuus-ING Posts: 104 ✭✭✭

    come on a pile of rocks? unless very historical there needs to be a sign next to it, then maybe otherwise thats a big no and 1* sadly. check the criteria rules and u will see.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Problem is that most reviewers won't know what a cairn is from a random pile of rock that someone stacked together in order create a Pokestop.

  • Kaladin4Kholin-PGOKaladin4Kholin-PGO Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Usually they will be visible from Google maps, at least, rhe good ones are

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 49 ✭✭

    No, there isn't anything close by in the foreground to help give an exact height.

    But there is some perspective with the background which would aid with an estimate.

    Given the background and the average height of a person being assumed of the submitter along with the angle the shot was taken at, I would guess that the pile of rocks is about 4-5 feet high.

    Unless @SSSputnik-ING is a giant, I doubt this thing is over 6 feet tops... unless he was standing ontop of something else, I suppose.

    Though, that's kind of besides the point. Most people would see just a bile of rocks. Unless some kind of context can convince reviewers, I don't see how this would be accepted except, perhaps, by dumb luck?

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 49 ✭✭

    @SSSputnik-ING Of course you wouldn't bother with nominating anything if you waste time driving 217 miles just for a pile of rocks.

    Why just one nomination? If you drive that far, at least get photos of other things? That way your eggs aren't all in one basket so to speak?

    So there is literally nothing closer to you that meets the acceptance criteria in which you could have nominated instead? Did you nominate everything in your immediate area of your place of residence?

    I am all for going on trips and exploring places, but just one nomination of a rock pile that's 217 miles away? That's a little bit extreme, imo. Surely you nominated other things while you were on that trip, yes?

    I hope you wouldn't set your expectations like that with nominating anything else.

    Why bother? Because it's part of playing the game, I thought.

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 787 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here's a Google Map listing of the Camel Soak.

    The main image of the water looks much more like a Camel Soak. With the railing around one particular pond of water, it could be used as a focal point for this camel soak if it's well-presented and has the accompanying website as a link.

    Looking at the photos added to the Google Maps listing, there seems to be two cairns. One of the cairns, taken three years ago looks go be a pretty formidable size against the moon in teh background, which is probably due to the magic of photography. The other cairn photo, taken a month ago shows what looks to be a substantially smaller cairn (emphasised by a woman adding her contribution to the top). It looks like this photo was taken slightly after this was nominated due to the addition of slightly more rocks in front of the giant one, but it is nothing like the photo of 2018.

    Also the description doesn't make any sense. The description is referring to the Camel Soak in question, and not this particular cairn. Judging on previous other photos before the cairn photo, it does look like someone decided to be a little more adventurous and build this cairn over a couple of hours with some of the rocks in the existing ponds.

    Don't think you have much hope here, unfortunately. Most people don't even know what a trig is!

  • yanghao1-INGyanghao1-ING Posts: 33 ✭✭

    The burden of proof is on the submitter to show why the submit should be a waypoint. Sometimes it's easy but in this case it would need more explaining in supporting information.

    Furthermore, the reviewer needs to take the time to look at the supporting info (if the info is provided) instead of "oh just a pile of rocks" and reject in this case.

    Personally If I came across this submit I would have to be convinced via the supporting info section. For example a link to a site talking about the formation, how long it's been there, who made it. For example if it's been there 100 years and there are old BW photos of the object maybe a video or news report about it.

    If the submitter REALLY wants to have a submit as a waypoint they should do more research about the object than just snap a photo and say "need more (portals/stops etc)"

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭✭✭
Sign In or Register to comment.