Faversham71-PGO
✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
-
I can only hazard a guess as to why it was reported - which would be for being on Private Residential Property. Anything on a family house or in the properties garden is ineligible. If this garden isn't attached to a single family residence (which it very much looks like from your photos) then it would be a different…
-
Without experimenting I couldn't - there are at least twenty types of sundial and it could be missing it's gnomon, or use a human as a movable gnomon.
-
It's in someone's garden therefore ineligible however accessible it is.
-
I still can't say it definitely isn't, and I'm not sure it matters that much. I'm guessing there are no alternative photos that make it clearer...
-
Out of interest what does the description say?
-
If they're "100% undisputable portal worthy" then removal reports would generally be rejected. Players can't remove portals themselves.
-
Wayfarer doesn't control whether the nominations become Pokestops or Portals etc. that's done by the games. Different games have different criteria, but you might find it useful to search for s2 cells on somewhere like pokemongohub
-
You could request a title edit to Concrete Sculpture on Sun Motif plinth, and see if reviewers prefer that.
-
Acceptance and removal criteria aren't the same.
-
It's likely to have been rejected as a duplicate - there's a long standing bug that brings through tose rejection reasons if a certain proportion of votes are duplicate.
-
Are you sure this wasn't reviewed under the old system?
-
I can't tell whether these are single family residences (ineligible) or apartment blocks (potentially eligible).
-
Thank you - I probably need to do a few more reviews until I come across the possibile issues/solutions. I know we're extremely unlikely to get any information on how our reviewing responses impact acceptance, but my fears were that reviewing things where from no fault of the submitter it could be impossible to provide…
-
"That looks highly likely to be right but I can't absolutely confirm" The only option I can see is to rate a potentially excellent submitted photo, title, and description as 'don't know' because of the way location has been bundled up which doesn't feel right.
-
I can't find the equivalent of the old 3* -likely to be there but can't be confirmed
-
Rejecting a generic cycle/pedestrian shared use sign was very difficult under the new system - everything was thumbs up until I got to the criteria - obviously explore/socialise were easy thumbs down - but the only way I could see of rejecting it was thumbing down that it was a good place to exercise. Should we passing…
-
Lack of comment box is a major ommision and needs reinstatement
-
How about "Routes is the most ill considered, inconsistent, badly rolled out feature Niantic have ever added to a game" ?
-
I'm confused - Niantic say the criteria hasn't changed? Do nominations no longer have to meet at least one of great place to explore/socialise/exercise?
-
Some of the cartoons were okay, but I think real photos would be much clearer and avoid ambiguity - maybe adding a few words would help too...
-
A wayspot does not have to be accessible to everyone to be legitimate. Providing some people can access it safely then it is perfectly valid, even if it is restricted by membership.
-
Agreed - Niantic have to remove wayspots within 40m on request, and reviewers have to take extra care to assess the location isn't on PRP if it appears to be within this distance, but wayspots are not prohibited from being within 40m of private residences.
-
Presumably university staff can access this? Being behind a no trespassing sign doesn't make a wayspot invalid. Providing it can be accessed by some people it is potentially valid even if you can't access it.
-
We can only guess at what triggers AI rejections. It doesn't seem to like photos with a lot of one colour, particularly green, rejecting what would appear to be a valid submission. Presumably it aalso looks for certain keywords. Some rejections that have been posted seem to have been valid rejections, others have been more…
-
Came across a new route along the creek this morning - same start point as one I had rejected for being unsafe, exactly the same route apart from the approved one finishes three stops later than mine...
-
What building is it on? Presumably not a private residence?
-
First thing that stands out is the opening line of your supporting text - "This town needs more stops..". That's completely irrelevant as to whether your nomination meets the eligibility criteria or not, and will put many reviewers off. It can, probably wrongly, suggest that the wish for more stops has greater importance…
-
The short answer is no. If you come across PRP wayspots in game you can report them - some will have slipped through careless reviews.
-
I'm not sure what more you could have done with this. Possibly worth resubmitting in the hope you get different reviewers, but getting any structures through without a plaque or listing is difficult.
-
In this case it does look like it's been rejected because the sign is at almost 45 degrees. Take it using your camera app from a distance to get it straight then crop if need be.