My girlfriend nominated this historic school building that has since been turned into an apartment complex. Several other buildings in our town have this same story, and have been accepted. My girlfriend just got an email about her nomination being offensive, and we cannot find anything that could’ve possibly triggered anyone into reporting. I’ve included screenshots in post. Does anyone know what could’ve happened?
I don’t see any abuse here at all.
It looks like a good nomination to me.
I assume you guys took the pictures yourself? That’s really the only thing I can think of. Hopefully staff can help
Yup! We got the pictures ourselves, and the location is accurate.
Did y’all follow the link in the email to appeal? I love historic buildings and that “Policy Violated” message is very unclear. If she hasn’t already, do the appeal, and point out (again) the historic importance of the building.
I would appeal it in the first instance. I am going to speculate that the word “School” is mentioned in the title, which could be the reason why it was flagged as abuse.
The question is whether you upload the photo elsewhere . When Niantic do web check and find your photo online, it cant distinguish between piracy and your own photo.
I took the picture through the Pokemon go app, so I don’t even have it saved in my phone
Whenever I have used the app it switches to the standard camera app then back to Pokemon Go so the images are saved in the normal location.
I have only done local nominations recently so I take the images then sort with the web submit when I return home.
Hi @OddToSee , please advise her to directly reach out to us.
Regards,
To be honest, I don’t see where it went wrong, but I can say if you’re looking for help getting it accepted, ChatGPT will work
Welcome to the forum, and I love that you want to help.
I caution against using ChatGPT to write descriptions. It will often make things up, or put in Pokemon references that will be reason for the nomination to be rejected.
I do hope the OP will follow up on this post.
No updates on our end yet, we’re waiting on the appeal to (hopefully) work
Hi @NianticOren, thanks for the response, I’m following up here as requested.
My nomination for Thomas H. Patterson Historical School (Est. 1890) in Bristol, CT appears to have been incorrectly flagged for abusive content. The submission only included a neutral, factual description of the building’s history and architecture and does not reference or target any individual or group.
Additionally, this is not an active school; the building has been repurposed into residential apartments, making it eligible under Wayfarer criteria. It is a well-preserved historic structure with clear cultural and architectural significance.
The photo is original, the location is accurate, and the nomination was submitted in good faith. Based on this, both the rejection reasons and the policy flag seem to have been applied in error.
Please let me know if you would like any additional details or verification.
Thank you 
It is certainly impressive that a structure built in 1890 has been preserved for 136 years. However, this preservation is the result of continuous renovations made for the purpose of using it as a multi-family residential building.
In my view, a key requirement for a Wayspot is whether the location was created and is maintained for the purposes defined in the eligibility criteria (exploration, exercise, or social interaction). This site is primarily maintained for residential living. Does it possess the characteristics of a place maintained for the purpose of showcasing historic architecture to visitors? I believe this point needs to be strengthened.
In my opinion, unique architecture meets the exploration criterion, no matter if it’s residential or not (unless it’s single family of course).
My nomination for Thomas H. Patterson Historical School (Est. 1890) in Bristol, CT appears to have been incorrectly flagged for abusive content. The submission only included a neutral, factual description of the building’s history and architecture and does not reference or target any individual or group.
Additionally, this is not an active school; the building has been repurposed into residential apartments, making it eligible under Wayfarer criteria. It is a well-preserved historic structure with clear cultural and architectural significance.
The photo is original, the location is accurate, and the nomination was submitted in good faith. Based on this, both the rejection reasons and the policy flag seem to have been applied in error.
Hi @OThePogoPlayerO , I have sent the relevant details. Please check my DM.
Regards,