I recently had a trail marker nomination rejected on appeal, with the reason given being that it’s a “common directional sign,” which I find confusing and inconsistent with previous guidance.
Here’s what the Appeals Team responded with:
Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The nomination in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it is a common directional sign.
I had included a direct reference in my supporting information to the criteria clarification that states trail markers like this are valid nominations. To add to the confusion, I’ve had 88 similar trail markers accepted in the past without issue.
I’m seeking clarification on how this decision aligns with the stated criteria, and I respectfully ask that the Appeals Team take a closer look at these types of nominations. Consistency and clear interpretation of the guidelines are really important for submitters trying to follow the rules.
Thank you.
Mod Edit: Post has been edited for tone to ensure it aligns with forum guidelines.
This approach to getting assistance is unlikely to work, because your annoyance is strongly affecting your choice of words.
I’ve also had "as it is a common XX’ as a rejection for something I felt (and still feel) is a valid POI, such as “normal route sign” when it is a trail marker for a National Trail, but I don’t attack anyone for that rejection.
Trailmarkers should refer to an actual trail.
This doesn’t. Its a regular street sign to a bike lane with no touristical or explorative value other than transportation by bike.
Trailmarkers (of Biketrails and hiketrails) should always refer to a specific (named) trail, wich has a set route and some touristical value to encourage exploring.
The Sign you show here is simply a directional sign of a non-distinct bike lane with no touristic or explorative value. So therefore, its not eligible to be a wayspot.
3 Likes
In this case I disagree, we received guidance last week from Wayfarer staff that the generic signs in Europe (using numbers) are not eligble, so I reject all of those, but this one is distinct, this is a named trail, to see the city. So I would either appeal at this forum, or submit again, with more evidence on this specific trail
1 Like
Good information! It even explains that the official tourist office has maps of this trail
1 Like
Did you provide this link in your nomination’s supportring info or in the appeal? Are you willing to post your full nomination here? This could better help to understand why it may have been rejected in the first place, and then why the appeals team rejected it.
I would assume this is directed at me and not @pokemaster4u2. Yes, the exact link to that article is in the supporting information for each and every marker of this trail that I submit. Alongside the link to Niantic’s criteria clarifications for trail markers.
The given rejection reasons were “dark/blurry photo” and the usual “not permanent/distinct”. I’m chalking its rejection up to snobbish reviewers that just hate trail markers for whatever reason and will use any excuse to reject them. Clearly whoever rejected this didn’t read any of the supporting information.
As for why the appeals team didn’t approve it, that’s anyone’s guess.
Hey, I know this is not gonna help your situation right now, but I actually reviewed this wayspot submission. I usually reject most trail markers, just because the submitter does not give enough information why this trail is unique and all that stuff. When I reviewed your wayspot, I was amazed with the information you provided, I immediately approved it seeing all the supporting info with the links. So sad to see this rejected as a reviewer who approved this. Hope you get it approved next time if you submit it again.
1 Like
Don’t sweat it, I got a rectification e-mail within a few hours of making this topic and the Pokestop has already gone live. It’s just frustrating that I had to waste an appeal on this obvious slamdunk nomination and then had to go through the trouble of addressing the appeals team’s mistake here.
2 Likes
Glad that it went live for you!
1 Like
Just out of curiosity, where is this guidance of theirs? I’m very interested in their reasoning.
Ah, still the same old refusal to understand the Dutch cycling culture, I see. Guess nothing changed in that aspect.
