I’m not sure how, but not only did the community reviewers get it wrong, the official reviewer also got it wrong. All I ask is that someone re-read my original appeal and take a look at the following image to get an understanding of what has transpired here.
Markers 60-63 and 103 have been POI for years, all submitted by me. Marker 102 was recently submitted and accepted. Marker 101 was recently submitted and somehow deemed a duplicate of Marker 60 despite it being over a city block away from Marker 101.
If no one can do anything to override this, I can resubmit Marker 101 and hope for the best. But, at the very least, can someone remove the picture of Marker 101 from the Marker 60 POI?
Hello and welcome @goofyspouse
It’s not always obvious where the best place is to post in the forum. The appeals area is for a specific type of appeal.
I am moving this to Nomination Support as there is no protocol for appealing an appeal.
We can try to assist a little with the issue.
Well, that certainly is unfortunate. In the vast majority of cases, though, I totally get it. Collectively we tend to be a pretty whiny and pedantic group.
But this instance? I’m just floored. I thought the appeal was a slam dunk, and given the clarity of the documentation, it should have been. Then I wondered if perhaps my appeal was rejected by AI, but I suspect it took the human touch to mis-spell “trail”.
We all work so diligently on this stuff and take a ridiculous amount of pride in it, so it just feels like a huge insult when someone deems a submission a duplicate when it is literally nowhere near it.
I appreciate the input, and if I wasn’t so steamed I might do exactly that. As it stands, I am in no mood to plead my case elsewhere for the chance of having someone fix an issue that is not of my own creation.
Hi,
I have now had a chance to look in depth.
First I understand the frustration of having one of a sequence rejected, this has happened to me.
Appeals are solely done by humans.
What a great system of trails you have for walking in this area. I looked at the official site and the volunteer one all detailed and well maintained.
Do you link to these in your submissions?
I think even if in the original supplementary you should link again in an appeal.
Appeals need to be focussed on the object in question and why it meets criteria and if marked as a duplicate then why it is not. It is very easy when as individuals we have a particular context about a a wayspot we forget that others will not have that same context. The appeal made is about whole system and not this wayspot. The reviewers are not interested in the fact you have been doing this for years etc. what needs to be addressed is why this post is valid.
So I don’t think the appeal reviewer was wrong to not over all the community.
There are in my view some issues.
Your title is not the best.
In my view this should not be the very broad “Newcastle Trail system” - that is not a specific trail.
It should be the Highland Trail as that is the specific trail name.
Numbering posts that don’t have official numbers on them should be a place of last resort to distinguish them. I would have expected this to be identified by the road the trail crosses - 139th Street SE.
I can see that post 60 is only 5 houses away and is quite similar
Please remember that community reviewers only see this thumbnail and title. They should be able to see on streetview that they are present at both locations. But it does look like it might help to update post 60 with Heritage Trail in the title and a new photo and location as from streetview it has been replaced. This will help distinguish it.
I can’t see post 102 as my map is not up to date.
I think you may have issues if resubmitting 101 as it is on the opposite side of the road. This is a judgement call as to whether a second decision point marker is needed as the path crosses the road. There are are arguments that can be made on either side - it is not a straightforward accept.
You need to think carefully how to present this and address all of these issues.
No, it isn’t. The coordinates provided by you is not where the nomination was submitted. You submitted the nomination away from its correct location right next to “Marker #60 Newcastle Trail System”. This is why your nomination was marked a duplicate.
We stand by our decision and are unable to revert the decision on the appeal.
I just reviewed my original email from the submission, and I see that you are spot-on correct. Not sure how I managed to screw that up, but I clearly did.
In the future I will review the coordinates before popping off here (or anywhere else).
Thank you for all of your thoughts and insights on this! NianticAaron has clarified the reason this became a duplicate, and it is because I somehow managed to submit it with incorrect coordinates. Stupid mistake on my part.
It really is an amazing urban trail system. Before I started submitting updates, corrections, and new submissions, it was represented very haphazardly within Niantic’s system. To keep things homogenous across the board, I decided upon the format “Marker #nnn Newcastle Trail System”. It is not ideal as you note and for the reasons you note, but I do love the consistency.
The issue with un-numbered markers has passed with time as they have updated signage on these bollard posts over the years. It was indeed a challenge getting some of the ones like the one you note (Marker #60) added, but I did link to the site and emphasize that I was been working with the team that installed the markers to determine what their designation for each one was. Markers 60-63 were all like that originally, but now only Marker 63 remains with the old signage. The other three all have had updated photos added and upvoted, so people no longer have to look at those images for the most part. Description edits to remove the wording about being a very old marker have been submitted as well and are currently in voting.
Fully agree with the proximity issues created by dual markers at roadway crossings. I never upgrade these submissions, as I have found that the local Wayfarer community has become accustomed to them and have a better understanding than the more geographically diverse reviewer pool with upgraded submissions. I can think of a handful of locations with similar layouts as this one, and I am pleased to report that it has not been a huge issue. Barring another coordinates issue by me, I am reasonably certain that Marker #101 will be accepted.
Thank you again for your detailed response and suggestions! It was a highlight in the conversation about an otherwise unfortunate and self-inflicted problem.
