Please do something with those players who always reject wayspots
k0pacb-PGO
Posts: 16 ✭✭
In the end, I can agree that some of my wayspots may be ineligible. But I think some players do ONLY rejections of ALL wayspots. I think they don't even know English, because the reasons are incredible. For example, here are a few recent "ineligible" wayspots: graffiti on a garage or a single birdhouse in a playground were called "a generic store or restaurant," which could be "not permanent or seasonal." Or they could see "a recognizable license plate" in the photo where there are no such plates.
Post edited by k0pacb-PGO on
Tagged:
Answers
Honestly, your named objects doesnt sound eligeble. Can you send pictures of the nominations?
As @LukeAllStars-PGO said, it doesn't sound eligible.
Graffiti = if it's a simple "tag" with no artistic value, it is "temporary" because it's subject to cleaning.
Birdhouse = if it is or looks like a mass-produced item that can be bought in a store, then it's kind of "generic". While reviewers should simply select "Do not meet criteria", some of them wrongfully select "generic business" as rejection reason for anything that looks "generic".
For any submission that is rejected for being "generic business", the rejection email will mention "Store or Restaurant" even if it's any other kind of generic business.
Also, take a look here :
why this cannot be a wayspot? it has pedestrian access because there's a playground behind this garage. it is not temporary because you can see this graffiti on last year's photos on Google Maps.
This is an ilegal, temporary grafitti, it doesnt meet any criteria
it is not temporary. it appeared a couple decades ago and is still there
but its not a real street art. More like vandalism. Would have declined it aswell.
It doesn't meet criteria because it is a simple graffiti tag.
This was my nomination...rejected due to ‘generic store or restaurant’. In actual fact, it’s educational and provides protection to the environment.
That simply doesn't meet criteria.
Although I see why your nominations got rejected, I can also see the frustration to find a good, nominate-able wayspots.
I got lots of my nominations declined as well, and I can agree lot of people decline because they are bored or don't want to see the context. It creates frustration and toxic community. But I guess niantic was asking for it?
Hell, I even got a cross once declined and marked as a seasonal display. A chapel marked as a natural feature....
What about this? Its for an outdoor movie theater. The first picture is what I took for the pokestop image, and the second picture is where I placed the actual location of the stop. It was on the middle round table of the seating area... someone please explain this rejection to me.
Hi Trainer 20Savage12,
Thank you for nominating Downtown Lyceum Movie Theater on Aug 27, 2020. Upon review by the Niantic community of players, we regret to inform you that this nomination is ineligible.
This nomination has been rejected due to the following reason(s):
Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination appears to obstruct the driveway of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers.
You posted the rejection message you got which said "Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, The real-world location of the nomination ....may interfere with the operations of... military bases...."
A quick Google of your submission title gets you to:
"Downtown Lyceum is one of three outdoor movie theaters located at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba"
You submission is on a military base at Gitmo. Submissions on military bases do not meet criteria, so it won't go through, nor should anything else on site.
Que yo sepa los cines al aire libre solo se ponen durante el buen tiempo para mí eso es no ser permanente
Es vandalismo más que algo bonito
Curios, the following has been rejected for:
Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Photo is low quality (e.g., pitch black/blurry photos or photos taken from a car).
Insufficient evidence that the nomination accurately reflects the submitted real-world location based on comparison of the submitted photo and map views, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria.
Photo of the nomination appears to be of a person or group of people instead of a valid object
The nomination does not appear to be visually unique.
Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria.
Description:
A 10 mile long trail joining Winchester and Southampton along the old Itchen Navigation. The Itchen Navigation provides habitat for a diverse flora and fauna, which has resulted in it being designated as a European Special Area of Conservation and a SSSI
Supporting info:
The location can be verified from the supporting photo cross referenced with satellite images and ordinance survey maps / OSM( https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.016989&mlon=-1.329392#map=18/51.01699/-1.32939 ).
The only rejection I can vaguely understand is the location, time to submit it again....
Having looked at Google Maps, there is no Streetview or Photosphere available for the area where this pin is placed. I think this one actually appeared on my review screen - I gave it a "Mismatched location" as there is no way to tell if the pin is really there. Something like this in the middle of nowhere really needs a photosphere to confirm a location, otherwise you will struggle to get it accepted.
You know that’s merit 3* for location? 1* is for you are certain that the nomination is not here.
The 3* score for location says "3 stars if likely to exist but is obscured". If I don't think it "likely" to be there then it will get a 1*. If I can see no evidence to give me a hint that it is probably at that spot then it gets a 1*.
How does a photosphere help validate the location ? Anyone wanting to create a false location can just edit the photosphere location.
The supporting photo had the railway embankment in it, the private road, and on the left if examined carefully the river so all though not conclusive it gave a good indication the location was correct. For footpaths etc you should really look on the ordinance survey maps, not google as it doesn't show them. OSM is a good fall back.
My real curiosity was regarding the other 4 rejection reasons i.e person or group of people
Re photospheres: the idea is that a supporting photosphere image shows elements that can be verified using satellite / other real-world imagery. That way it shows that the photosphere is of the true place. Of course, sometimes that's not possible but it's what you aim for.
I often add photospheres as people seem to like them. As you say they only really add value if there are discernible features on the maps to validate them against, though I believe most people just look to see the pin is next to the nomination, and don't consider the validity of the sphere itself.
If there are such features, it is normally possible to get them in the supporting photo making the photosphere redundant. For example in the nomination above the supporting photo included the nomination, the road it was forking from, the railway embankment running alongside the road, and if you looked carefully the river. A quick look along the route on the ordinance survey maps would have shown there is only one locations the trail forks from a road with a railway line next to it.
A 360 degree photosphere at numerous locations along a trail will prove that the location is correct. It only takes a few seconds & they will 100% prove proof of location, guaranteed. Especially if you can see from photosphere to photosphere. Especially if you take a photosphere from something that is clearly visible from overheard & the next from another spot that is clearly visible or something from the photosphere is visible from one photosphere to the next. It is definitely worth it