Basically as above, i submitted a tourist attraction thats a natural feature, natural features werent rejection criteria for a while but now the appeal team have said that it is now
2 Likes
2 Likes
I was just talking about this rejection reason! Apparently it can also be triggered in community review, but idk how:
In that same topic, I just linked all the ways to reject a nomination, and natural feature isn’t one of them:
What is going on with rejection for being a natural feature? This should not happen.
4 Likes
Dunno kt it will accomplish anything, but can you explain why natural feature is a rejection reason for appeal staff when not on the criteria please @NianticAaron @NianticTintino @NianticAtlas
2 Likes
Clearly they are still failing to keep their policies, internal documentation and training instructions in sync with their public-facing criteria.
We’ve already established that the public-facing stuff continues to be inconsistent, confused, and self-contradictory.
Occasionally someone on the forum will start a massive list of miscommunication, and after a few years some of the items may be addressed. (Hooray!)
Unfortunately, their changes seem to come out all at once, with no community review, at the same time as their underpinnings have been revamped.
If my memory serves, Natural Features have had official blessing since Casey invited us to submit Cenotes, Waterfalls and Scenic Overlooks 'way back in the day.
They still remain among the most difficult things to gain approval, however.
It was an emily rejection, so i didnt even get to the reviewers, though i thunk it still would uave been hard to get through them. I was hoping the appeals team would have known natural feafures were sctually ok (and mentioned it in the appeal just to be safe) but alas, no luck. But thats why ive tagged the nia staff, in the hopes one of them either
- Overturns it
- Explains that natural features arent allowed again
1 Like
Its also been mentioned that parks dont necessarily need a sign, but when you appeal a park with no sign (thats obviously a park ie marked on google maps, has play equipment etc), the appeal team tell you its not distinct or needs a sign etc. Seems like natural features might start applying there too
1 Like
Just seen, theres another niantic staff to tag lol @NianticLC
I think this falls more under the whole “Signfarer” issue, as I think most tend not to nominate natural features unless there’s a sign nearby for it, some kind of place marker. This could be how ML/staff are still thinking, that there needs to be more than just the natural feature in the nomination.
Also, are you sure it was ML, as staff could have reviewed it. “Our team” emails cover both ML and staff reviews, and staff reviews may take longer than 24 hours.
It was rejected 22-23 hours after i submitted it, thats usually emily time
With the standard ML text or natural feature?
Thats the email i got for the original rejection
That was the reason given, so maybe it was the team, but it was rejected 18 hours after submission, thats usually when emily kicks in
You will not find the info I’m looking for any longer I hope on your memory 
And sorry for using your topic for my own researchs.
I thought that you first received the ML rejection and at the top of your contribution could have stood “This submission was declined by Niantic’s automated process for not adhering to Wayfarer criteria”. Than you appealed it and the human rejector gives the " The nomination was of a natural feature".
We want to know for the other thread if ML is able to give other feedbacks.
Im fairly sure it said automated peocess for rejection reason, or somwthjng along those lines, because it defo didnt say natural feature
Ok standard 
Will this be brought up with niantic at the next super top secret ambo nia meeting? Its ok if you cant say, just blink once for yes, twice for yes yes 
2 Likes
Niantic, Scopeley, Santa Claus - doesn’t matter I take your themes 