Are natural vantage points / trail ends valid waypoints?

[PapePieX]

Hi,

I recently made a nomination that was rejected by the AI, and then I lost the appeal. I don’t know if it’s because I chose poorly when it came to choosing my pictures, I didn’t explain myself properly, or if it’s just not a valid nomination type. If it matters my nomination was in French. So first I’ll provide a short summary, then the required info, and then a more detailed presentation.

Basic explanation: my town border an important river, but has very few vantage points onto the water. There’s 3 main ones, the municipal boat launch, the municipal marina, and the nomination in question. Basically, there’s a marked trail on city-owned land that goes through the forest parallel to the river. This train shows up on google streets view. Along the way, it branches off towards the river. It’s still part of the official paths, because there are city signs along this path as well as a fairly elaborate foot bridge. A few meters past the foot bridge is a large rocky protrusion out into the river, giving a wide view of the water and the peninsula on the other side. It’s a very nice spot to walk to. However, it does not have any human-made objects on site. No plaque, sign, bench, table, etc. It is completely natural, aside from the trail that leads to it (and nowhere else). I really struggle to demonstrate in the app that this isn’t just a random off-trail foot path.

Required information:
Screenshot:

Text version:

Proposition de Wayspot pour Belvédère naturel “La Roche”

Papineauville QC

Appel rejeté

2025-06-13

Notes de l’appel

Ce belvédère, appelé “la roche” par les locaux, est un lieu populaire par les locaux pour la vue sur la baie de la pentecôte. Il ne s’agit pas d’un lieu informel, bien qu’il est naturel. On ne le voit pas dans google très bien et n’apparaît pas comme pa section Est-Ouest, mais il fait parti du sentier officiel et un grand pont piétonnier (autre nomination) en bois sert à relier ce site avec le reste de la route verte. C’est la destination de choix pour tous ceux quj empruntent la route verte #1 à Papineauville.

Note de Niantic

Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! We would recommend to submit with the placemarker sign representing the Wayspot location which will increase the chances of this nomination getting approved. We also recommend that you review the Wayspot content guidelines: Content Guidelines — Wayfarer Help Center

Les vérificateurs ont invoqué les motifs principaux suivants pour expliquer leur refus de cette proposition :

• La proposition manque d’originalité ou n’a pas de signification historique et culturelle

The site is not easily identifiable on Google Maps. It’s in Papineauville, Québec, Canada. Here are some orthophotos were we can clearly see the trail, the footbridge, and the natural lookout.

Here is trail POV, approaching the footbridge from the Eastern side. The trail part does show on Google streets map as well as within PoGo itself.

Here is the footbridge, showing it’s a managed construction in good shape and that there is signage. It’s a bit generic (no swimming), but it’s got the city’s logo.

Here is the view leaving the footbridge and approaching the lookout.

And finally, some views from the lookout. I had originally submitted a square picture as I was told they look better in-game, but I think it might have failed to convey that we can pretty much see the whole bay from here.

I’ve used up my appeals (the other one got accepted), it feels like the AI doesn’t like nominations without obvious man-made objects. So while I’ve thought of re-submitting, I suspect the AI would trash it again no matter how much I improve my nomination text. I was encouraged to seek advice here. Is this a valid nomination? I think the reason given for rejection on the appeal is that it’s too generic. I wouldn’t think so, as it’s the only natural publicly-accessible lookout onto the river, the other two are places of motorized boat traffic. Though I’m not aware of any official toponym for it, when I moved to town I’ve heard various locals refer to it as “la roche” (the Rock), hence my nomination name.

I apologize for not having the English version on hand, but the first eligibility criteria on the website is:

Un endroit idéal pour l’exploration

Un endroit où vous aimez vous aventurer, une destination ou un repère d’intérêt et d’importance locaux, qui rend nos communautés uniques et façonne leur identité. Quelque part ou quelque chose qui raconte l’histoire unique d’un lieu, son histoire, sa signification culturelle, ou nous apprend des choses sur la communauté dans laquelle nous vivons.

While “natural lookout” is not on the list of examples, it very much fits the description of this criteria, being a destination one would like adventure to, important to locals. It might not have a plaque telling a story, but I’d reckon it is far more visited than any of the town’s plaques are ever read.

The second criteria is

Un endroit idéal pour faire de l’exercice

Un endroit où vous iriez pour prendre l’air, vous dégourdir les jambes ou faire de l’exercice. Des lieux qui encouragent la marche, l’exercice et la jouissance des espaces publics. Ou quelque chose qui nous apprend ou nous encourage à être en meilleure santé.

While I struggle to grasp the nuance between “an ideal area for exploration” and “an ideal area to go take fresh air”, this location is very much the highlight of the trail (the rest is just a rather short, about 500m, walk through the woods), very much an excellent place to stop to take in the breeze.

And though meeting all criteria is not necessary, and the link to the third might be weakest, still…

Un endroit idéal pour fréquenter des gens

Un lieu de rassemblement préféré pour les amis ou les étrangers, où vous pouvez boire un coup ou manger ensemble, vous divertir ou regarder les gens passer. Ou un lieu qui nous rassemble pour partager une expérience locale et culturelle.

It’s as valid a gathering place, if not moreso, than many examples in the list. One can certainly come here to “watch people go by”, the bay in front is popular with folks in kayaks, not to mention the other hikers.

So first of all, is this a valid waypoint?

Second of all, if it is, can something be done? As said above, I’m not certain what I could do to get around the AI. Here I have the luxury of providing a lot of photographic evidence. Not so much within the app.

Thanks for your help! I’m really hoping I can get a few waypoints by the water in, I love going by the water in my walks.

[elijustrying]

Paging @MissMitose12 can you help?

[TjoeMi]

First of all , u need to understand that without sign or bench or any placemaker for anchor, you can argue that there will be various spot there

You might argue that A,B,C have good view to water, even D might have good lake view.

The area also might not have street view which further complicate if the object is real or no.

So i suggest you try getting photo of things there that can be used as anchor. That definitely increase you chance. Personally i like vantage point. I submit one before but need appeal to get it through because people kept rejecting it for not distinct or cant find it.

[PapePieX]

I know the rules ask that we only provide our own photos, does that apply to supporting documentation? Because I don’t own the rights to the orthophoto shared above.

It’s hard to prove stuff from area where cars don’t go. None of these sites have an “anchoring object” on site, though it could be argued that my proposal is anchored by both the managed trail and the footbridge (which my understanding is can be its own waypoint). A and C have no trails going to them. Furthermore, unlike my nomination and B, they aren’t clear of trees, they don’t offer a wide field of view. Which can be seen from the satellite view on Google Maps.

B is most similar to my nomination, in that it is a stony protrusion offering a wide field of view. It even has a trail going to it, which I have no taken any pictures of. Walking it, though, it is clearly an informal trail, as it is much narrower and has no signs nor structures. From the litter, it looks like a popular fishing spot. It’s also smaller than my nominations, allowing fewer people on it. So while similar on many points, it is inferior on most accounts.

My reading of the rules is that a man-made object is not required, though I can certainly see how it adds evidence of not being a generic random spot. It’s hard to prove this for natural sites with just a single supporting photo, though. The vantage point is right next to the footbridge on the orthophoto, but the leaf cover hides the footbridge on satellite view, and in person the viewpoint is just out of sight from the footbridge, it’s impossible to unambiguously show in a single picture that this spot is the one and only destination for this footbridge.

[MissMitose12]

Salut PapePieX,

Effectivement, ta proposition concerne un lieu naturel sans panneau officiel, et c’est souvent ce genre de détails qui cause un refus. C’est dommage, car ta description est vraiment complète et bien rédigée.

Personnellement, je trouve que ta proposition tient la route : elle favorise l’exercice, l’exploration et la socialisation — trois éléments clés des critères. Le Québec est rempli de lieux naturels qui mériteraient d’être reconnus, mais comme ils ne sont pas toujours officiellement balisés, ça devient un vrai défi d’obtenir une validation.

Ne te décourage pas, continue tes soumissions, ça finit toujours par porter fruit !

[PapePieX]

Si t’as des conseils pour que ça évite l’IA pour qu’au moins des humains puissent en juger, je serais preneur. En rédigeant ce post j’ai colligé plus d’arguments que j’avais initialement, que je pourrais mettre dans une nouvelle soumission, mais faut toujours que des humains aient la chance de le lire.

[MissMitose12]

Comme tu le sais déjà, la photo principale d’un wayspot doit être authentique, sans retouche. Pour ce qui est de la photo des alentours, il m’est arrivé rarement de voir une pièce justificative comme celle que tu proposes, j’ai déjà vu passer des montages faits maison qui démontraient clairement la validité de la proposition. Donc tant que c’est pertinent et que ça aide à appuyer ta demande, ça peut être tenté.

[MissMitose12]

Il arrive que l’IA rejette des photos parfaitement valides. Quand ça m’arrive, je les soumets de nouveau, exactement les mêmes. Jusqu’à présent, ça a toujours été accepté à la deuxième tentative (peut-être juste un coup de chance)

[TjoeMi]

If AI kept rejecting, appeal is what you can do. But i saw you did it. And even if you manage to pass AI, personally i also have trouble accepting this without anchor.

[PapePieX]

C’est une bonne idée. À moins qu’un employé intervienne, je vais préparer une soumission en ce sens.

[PapePieX]

Well I took better pictures, included the map in the supporting pic, added details to the nomination, and my new submission again got caught by the AI. I’m out of appeals, though, it’s a bit frustrating that I can’t get this to reach human voters.

[elijustrying]

I would try the appeal route it is now 15 days between replenish. Prepare a good appeal.