Can we appeal a rejected appeal?

I tried to change the name of this wayspot (59.926741,10.729778) to “Kjærlighetskarusellen” (its current in-game name is “Pissoar”, lit. “Urinal”). It was rejected by Niantic after over a year, and figured I could appeal to provide more context to prove that “Kjærlighetskarusellen” is the actual/proper name of the structure. So I appealed with the following appeal statement:

“Kjærlighetskarusellen” is the proper name for this structure. If you google this name, you will find plenty of search results to confirm this, including this Wikipedia article: . Thank you for your consideration.

And it came back with this result:

Thanks for the appeal, Explorer. The existing text is more accurate than the suggested contribution. Hence, we are unable to approve this.

This makes me wonder if Niantic even reads appeal statements at all? If you google the name, every single result is about this structure, and it should be clear that the official name is better than a generic “urinal”. The structure is arguably the most iconic piece of gay architectural history in Oslo, and this being rejected during pride makes this even more frustrating.


Hi @bilde2910
In the german wikipedia I found this passage:

Die amtliche Bezeichnung des Bauwerks in der Denkmalliste lautet Pissoaret i Stensparken

Thanks for posting this.
People have often posted here in similar circumstances with nominations. I don’t see a title edit as being that different.
If it turns out to be an appropriate edit then it’s all part of the learning experience. So a good thing.

What an interesting wayspot, and clearly culturally significant. The current title is totally focussed on function and belies it’s cultural significance. As it has an official title it’s totally baffling that it hasn’t been accepted and left with something non-descript.


This adds to the multiple community frustrations around team or ML rejections of official names of POI, even more so now that we have limited quotas for edit appeals.

@NianticAaron as it was suggested to us to report appeals where the team doesn’t get it right, can this feedback please be conveyed? This structure has a documented official name that is found in many sources, and with the existing name it looks like an ineligible object while it is actually something tied to local history.


Thanks for the report. I have updated the correct title. You should see the changes reflected soon.


Thank you a lot! :tada: