Wayspot Title: Historischer Giebel-Schmuck Otto-Bauer-Straße
Location (lat/lon): (51,1202681, 13,9184007)
City: Radeberg (SN)
Country: Germany
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
Additional Information:
Hello Niantic Team,
I am appealing the rejection of this Wayspot submission, which seems to have been automatically rejected.
This historic sandstone gable ornament (Giebelschmuck) is a unique architectural detail from the “Gründerzeit” era. It features detailed floral patterns and a central coat of arms (Wappenschild) on the facade of a historical building in Radeberg.
Why this meets the criteria:
Great place for exploration: It is a visible piece of local history and architecture, encouraging passersby to look up and appreciate the historic craftsmanship of the neighborhood.
Safe Access: The ornament is on the facade of a multi-family residential building (not a single-family private property / PRP) and is perfectly visible and safely accessible from the public sidewalk.
Please review this beautiful, historic facade ornament. Thank you for your time!
@NianticOren @NianticAaron @NianticLC
Hello,
Thank you for moving my post. I understand that this category is for Nomination Support, but I would like to kindly ask if a Niantic moderator could manually review this nomination.
This submission was instantly and automatically rejected by the system’s filter, which is unfortunately a false positive.
As you can see from the supporting photo, this is a highly detailed, historical sandstone gable ornament from the “Gründerzeit” era. It is located on a large multi-family apartment building (not private residential property) and is fully visible and safely accessible from the public sidewalk.
Since this was an automatic filter rejection and not a community vote rejection, could you please take a quick look and consider restoring/approving this eligible historic feature?
Thank you very much for your help!
Mod note: excessive tags redacted
You do not need to tag multiple Scopely staff members. Please don’t.
The standard way to appeal rejections is to Appeal it from your wayfarer account. If no Appeal button is available, then you have used both appeals up and need to wait 15 days after the first appeal was used for the option to come back.
You cannot appeal nominations here that you have not appealed in the normal way. Even then, it is only appeal rejections that make no sense which should be re-appealed. An example would be a gym being rejected by the community and then by the appeal reviewer, where the submission had no rejection issues.
When you appeal this, if it gets rejected this is not going to be a clear-and-obvious error by the appeal reviewer, since this is clearly a borderline submission.
Hello @salixsorbus,
Thank you for the clarification and the heads-up! My apologies for tagging the staff members; I wasn’t aware that this is discouraged here. I won’t do it again.
Regarding the standard appeal process: I have indeed already used my two monthly appeals on other nominations, which is why I cannot use the regular appeal button for this one at the moment.
Since this was instantly rejected by the automated system (ML filter) and not by community reviewers, I was hoping to get some feedback here on how to improve the submission for a future re-submission once my appeals or nominations reset.
If you consider this a borderline submission, what would you suggest I change to make it clearer to both the AI and the community reviewers that this is a historic feature on a multi-family building and not a private single-family property?
Thanks again for your advice!
Tagging one is OK in some situations (I just saw this done correctly in a different thread), but multiple is just unnecessary. Scopely staff do read every thread.
It may not have been rejected by the ML system classifying it as SFPRP (single-family private residential property), but because the ML system couldn’t see anything eligible. Features on the exterior walls of buildings are almost always borderline.
This is one I submitted, which is on the wall of an apartment building which was converted from a former Co-operative store. The Co-ops were a major feature of the late 19th century into the late 20th, and this is strong reminder of the past history of the building. Supporting photo below:
However, this is not just an architectural feature. It is also fairly unique, with nothing else like this for a few miles. When lots of old buildings exist, it is hard to say why this feature is more important than that feature, and why this feature is even something that people will notice. Distinctiveness is important.
Regarding the appeal, you will get the Appeal button back within 15 days. If you remember (or can check) when your first appeal was (of your two most recent appeals), that is when the 15 day counter starts from.
Submit the entire building, it’s listed and protected (Denkmalschutz)
Thank you, @wooperlooper!
To be honest, I am a bit hesitant because I have submitted other officially listed heritage buildings (“Denkmalschutz”) in the past, and Niantic/the community rejected them anyway (often mistaking them for private single-family homes).
If I resubmit this, should I use the beautiful sandstone gable ornament as the main photo (to catch the eye and avoid the “just a house” rejection) and explain the “Denkmalschutz” status of the entire building in the description?
Or is it better to take a photo of the entire building facade as the main photo? What is your experience with getting listed buildings approved in Germany?
I usually include a photo proving it’s not SFPRP, the official object number, and sometimes a screenshot of the Denkmalkarte. Since doing that, they mostly get approved, or accepted on appeal
I have also submitted details and decorations but usually the building in its entirety works better, especially since your decoration really doesn’t seem very remarkable (still pretty!)
That is extremely helpful, thank you so much for sharing these examples, @wooperlooper!
It’s funny that you mention this approach because that is exactly what I have been trying to do recently. I have been systematically going through the official Wikipedia lists of cultural monuments for my area to submit the missing historic buildings step-by-step:
Radeberg: Liste der Kulturdenkmale in Radeberg – Wikipedia
Schönborn (Dresden): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kulturdenkmale_in_Schönborn\_ (Dresden
However, my mistake was that I only used the titles from these Wikipedia lists and made up the descriptions myself, without providing any official proof of their “Denkmalschutz” status in the supporting information.
Seeing your screenshots is a huge help. I now understand that:
Submitting the entire building is much more effective than just a minor detail.
Including a screenshot of the official monument map/registry as the supporting photo is the key to getting them approved.
I will definitely try resubmitting this building following your advice, and I’ll use this method for all the other listed monuments in Radeberg and Schönborn as well.
Thanks again for your amazing support!
Good luck on your mission!
