I am submitting this issue to request a review of a rejected nomination corresponding to the official identification plaqueof the Passarel·la Peatonal Camí Casablanca, located in La Pobla de Vallbona.
The rejection reason indicated that the Wayspot was “not permanent or not distinctive”. However, the nomination refers specifically to a permanent, fixed public infrastructure, promoted by the Generalitat Valenciana and publicly tendered in 2019 as part of a cycle-pedestrian mobility project.
The plaque shown in the main photo is an official, permanent marker that clearly identifies the structure and confirms its institutional and non-temporary nature.
This pedestrian and cyclist bridge provides safe access over the CV-35 at Camino Casablanca (PK 19+700) and forms part of the local cycle-pedestrian network connecting residential areas with nearby natural spaces.
The location is clearly verifiable on site and through map services at the coordinates provided. I would appreciate clarification on whether official plaques identifying permanent pedestrian bridges are considered acceptable Wayspots under current Wayfarer criteria.
The way to appeal a rejected submission is to go to the submission in your nominations page Niantic Wayfarer and click on the Appeal button at the top right.
If there is no appeal button, it means you have used both appeals recently. You get two appeals, each of which returns 15 days after being used, which effectively means you can make four appeals every month.
Is this correct coordiate? I am sorry but you gonna need more evidence on how this is what you claim to be. Words only is not enough , and you might need official link showing the route. Last, you need to appeal from the wayfarer page and only come here if your appeal got rejected
It’s not easy to know where the best place is to post your questions. I am moving this to Nomination Support as the appeals section is for some very specific reasons.
I think the bridge and or plaque is eligible. I would mention it was built in [somewhere between April 2019 and July 2021] and why it was built (fairly obvious!)
The rejection for “not permanent and distinct” is because reviewers didn’t see it as anything worth accepting. We cannot see your submission details except the supporting photo, which would be much better if it shows the aesthetics of the bridge, like this [which is not a good photo as it was taken from streetview and from the road, but hopefully shows what I mean]
