All my nominations got rejected. I dont know what got them rejected.
Please explain how those nomination fit wayfarer criteria..
Personally i would reject all those withoutmore detail
Welcome to the community 
All of these have obvious problems which would lead to them being rejected.
Wayspots are not just things you find interesting/useful in your community. They are explicitly something that is focussed on being Social, Exploration or Exercise.
A car park meets none of these.
A townhouse meets none of these.
The Mercedes Brick House might meet exploration criteria, but it then has to satisfy Location and Accessibility issues. In this case, if it is a single-family private residential property (SFPRP), it is not eligible. If reviewers perceive it to be SFPRP, it will be rejected.
If you want help finding eligible submissions, you can ask for help, but will need to post the approximate location.
Once you understand wayspots better, you may find it is fun finding things that are eligible.
Thanks salixsorbus. Hope to get my first nomination accepted.
Wow. I guess you have lots of nominations accepted. Good for you.
Everyone has rejected nominations. It is common when starting out that people submit things they want, as opposed to things that are eligible. Once you understand what wayspots are, it is easier to get things approved because you tend not to submit obviously ineligible things.
We all have rejections. I did more research than others before starting, I guess, as it took a while (my first rejection was when I already had six approved) but… I currently have 59 approved, 11 in progress, and 19 rejections.
In the meantime, I have built up my neighborhood (the southeastern quarter of a suburb of San Diego) from around 90 active pokestops and 11 gyms, to around 125 pokestops and 25 gyms (and I have 17 approved outside of this area).
Ohhhhhh… The one along Mercedes is on the end side of the village. The one along Munich is the one near the entrance of the village. I have not gone to that part of the village yet. Thanks for that!
Nominating is an art. Everyone gets that big ol red “NOT ACCEPTED” on some of their nominations. Eventually you’ll learn what photos would make a great cover photo, what surrounding landscape or obstacles to avoid having in a cover photo (like body parts or obscene imagery), what information to include in a description, what kinds of details to emphasize in the supporting information, etc, etc, etc.
If you firmly believe a specific nomination would be a great wayspot but it gets rejected initially, see if you can find more information about how the nomination would be great as a social hotspot, for exercise, or as an exploration spot and give it another go! The forums are a great start for more info, the people here love to help out.
When it comes to your parking lot nomination, they are usually pretty bad for socializing, terrible for exercise, and often have no exploration value, so i wouldve rejected that despite it being safe and accessible. HOWEVER, I did see a nomination recently that was a parking lot that had a dedication plaque on the far end, which would make it acceptable under the exploration criteria because of local historical and cultural value. Normally that parking lot would be a swift reject by me, but a visibly and officially dedicated parking lot is a unique sight.
I have my own rejected nomination as well. I recommend you to read wayfarer criteria before doing any submission. Spamming low quality nominatiion is subject to abuse ladder system
Yes, I have similar. I recently saw one that was a named park and ride lot with a large plaque about the namesake, who was the Department of Transportation engineer who designed the adjacent freeway and died while it was under construction. The freeway itself is also named after him.
Because ppl take this way to serious. But bet the bench outside their house is stop or gym
Actually we do not know the reasons for rejection on these nominations, since only the submission emails were shared. It may very well be that the nominations were all rejected by the “automated process” instead of community reviewers. Since it was already explained why these were not good nominations, then there was no need to ask for that information.
Reviewers not taking it seriously when they review risk sanctions on their accounts.
