Frustration with AI &ML Rejections for Architectural Art & Facade Details

[bloodyoushed]

Hi everyone,

I’m new here and I would like to share some feedback and frustration regarding the current AI-based Wayfarer rejection system, especially when it comes to architectural art and facade details.

Recently, one of my nominations (a decorative mascaron sculpture on a historic apartment building facade in Budapest) was rejected both by the AI and later through appeal. What confuses me is not simply the rejection itself, but the inconsistency compared to many similar Wayspots that already exist or regularly appear in community voting.

The nomination was not a generic wall or random facade. It was a permanently attached sculptural architectural detail with artistic character and visible craftsmanship, contributing to the historical streetscape of the neighborhood. Similar facade sculptures, reliefs, mascarons, decorative lions, and architectural ornaments are already present across Wayfarer in many European cities.

What makes this especially discouraging is that the rejection often happens instantly through AI before the community can even evaluate the nomination properly. Even after carefully reading the photo guidelines and criteria discussions, improving my photos, writing detailed supporting information, and submitting an appeal, the result remained the same. Meanwhile, very comparable nominations seem to pass regularly.

I understand that not every decorative element can or should become a Wayspot. However, the current AI system appears to struggle with distinguishing between:

• generic building decorations
  and
• unique artistic architectural features with cultural or visual interest.

The response usually references “common building facade” or “lack of uniqueness,” but this feels difficult to apply consistently when many accepted Wayspots fall into the exact same category.

I also feel this unintentionally discourages exploration-based nominations in historic urban areas, where architectural details are often one of the most interesting parts of the environment. Not every meaningful point of interest is a playground, mural, or memorial plaque. Historic decorative art can also encourage exploration and appreciation of local culture.

At this point, repeated automatic rejections have honestly reduced my motivation to contribute nominations at all, and from reading forum discussions, I know I am not the only Wayfinder experiencing this issue with AI moderation and machine-learning filtering.

I genuinely hope the system can improve in the future ( especially regarding artistic architectural details and culturally significant facade elements ) so that these nominations can at least reach community review instead of being filtered out immediately.

Thanks for reading, and I would be interested to hear whether others have experienced similar inconsistencies.

[TjoeMi]

I understand the frustration of having nomination rejection. For now you shouldnt let it stress you. What you said now might become input for future development but improvement wont happen so fast. What you can do is appeal those rejection, human and not AI will review them. Hopefully by appealing those rejection, staff can take another look into your nomination

[cyndiepooh]

Welcome to the forum!

It must be frustrating when the Machine Learning model has been trained to reject things the community has always found eligible. But if the human appeals team is also rejecting them, maybe this indicates that pieces of buildings are not great wayspots? I am in a suburban part of the US so don’t run into these kinds of things often. Would you care to share some examples of things you feel meet criteria that both the “automated process” and the appeals team have rejected?

[bloodyoushed]

Thank you for the response!
Yes, of course here is one of the examples that confused me the most.

This nomination was a permanently attached mascaron sculpture on the facade of a historic apartment building in Budapest. It was rejected first by the automated process, then again on appeal by the human review team as “a decorative facade” lacking uniqueness or significance.

However, while reviewing nominations myself, I regularly see very similar architectural details, facade sculptures, reliefs, and ornaments in voting (and many existing Wayspots in Budapest and other European cities are also comparable decorative architectural elements.)

That is what feels inconsistent to me. I completely understand rejecting generic mass-produced decorations, but I struggle to understand where the line is currently being drawn for architectural art or historic facade details.

Here are the screenshots of the nomination and rejection:

[cyndiepooh]

Hmm. This is very ornate, but there are a lot of them.

This does appear to be a decorative element as the appeal reviewer stated. Is there special significance to this face? Is there a particular artist? Would the entire building perhaps be historically significant rather than one small detail from it?

I did want to respond since the reply was to me, but this kind of nomination is not in my wheelhouse, so I will leave further discussion to others.

[bloodyoushed]

Thanks for the reply.

I understand the point about common architectural decorations, but what makes this situation difficult to interpret from a submitter perspective is consistency.

In addition to this nomination, I have previously submitted similar architectural art with additional supporting context (including external references to the artist / building’s artistic value), and even those were rejected by both the automated system and appeal review.

At the same time, I regularly see comparable architectural details, facade sculptures, and ornamental elements appear in voting — and some of them are accepted.

From a user perspective, this makes it hard to understand where the actual line is between:

• “common decorative facade element”
  and
• “permanent architectural artwork contributing to cultural or historical value”

I completely understand that not every building detail can qualify as a Wayspot, but clearer consistency in how these cases are evaluated (especially for architectural ornamentation) would really help.

Happy to provide more examples if that is useful for discussion.

[bloodyoushed]

Additionally, I would like to share another example that highlights the inconsistency I am experiencing.

A small park / resting area with seating in my area was recently rejected by the automated system, while a very similar type of nomination is currently appearing in community voting.

I will attach both the rejected submission and the one currently in voting for comparison. From a user perspective, it is difficult to understand why one is filtered out immediately while the other is allowed to reach reviewers, despite being very similar in concept.

This is not meant as criticism of reviewers, but rather as feedback on how the automated filtering system distinguishes between similar types of POIs.

[salixsorbus]

@bloodyoushed

From a user perspective, this makes it hard to understand where the actual line is between:

• “common decorative facade element”
  and
• “permanent architectural artwork contributing to cultural or historical value”

There is no hard line. That is why it is hard to understand where that line is.

Lots of things have no hard line between good and bad, between acceptable and unacceptable, legitimate and illegitimate. Some things do have a hard line of course, but architectural features as wayspots are not one of those.

[wooperIooper]

Hi, are you the same person as here? Please note that multi-accounting to circumvent bans and warnings is not received well by Niantic

Auto-rejected by ML Bot? Need help with Historical Architectural Heritage in Budapest

Hello everyone, I am looking for some advice and support regarding a few of my recent nominations in Budapest, Hungary. I have been trying to submit beautiful, historically significant architectural details and heritage buildings. Unfortunately, they keep getting rejected almost immediately by the automated system (ML Bot), and I even wasted an Upgrade on one of them. Since it’s the automated ML process rejecting them, no specific rejection criteria are given. I am sharing the details of my no…

[frealafgb]

What is the overall building? You might find it’s possible to submit the building facade as a whole, rather than 1 smaller feature. I don’t find the ML picks up on those as easily, so it might mean it goes to local reviewers. You could use web submit to add multiple supporting photos which might be the zoomed in pictures of some of the carvings?

I recently submitted a building facade in my town which is a listed feature, ie its protected due to architectural interest. Does your country have a similar system? Including details of why the building is significant can really strengthen a nomination especially if it goes to appeal

[TjoeMi]

Regarding the building facade there are some clarification here.

Architecture

Buildings A building with unique architecture, features, or historical or cultural significance can make a great nomination. The submitter should explain the story of the building or what about it in particular is unique. The supporting text should prove why this is an important building worthy of exploration. Referencing historical registries and news articles can be helpful when it comes to verifying your claims. [image] This building above is a great example of unique architecture. A…

Since the appeal team reject your facade nomination, that means AI is working as intended by staff

As per your bench /park nomination, you can work the foto better. We dont know what trigger the rejection. Please take bench foto without cars and view from the bench. If the bench represent park or it have good view it will significantly increase its chance of acceptance

[bloodyoushed]

erm no? idk who is it
this is my only forum account, and I was not involved in that thread.

I understand why you asked since the topic is similar, but many people seem to be experiencing frustration with ML rejections for architectural and artistic nominations lately

[bloodyoushed]

Thank you for sharing this clarification. I actually already read these guidelines before submitting, and that is exactly why I’m confused.

My frustration is not really about a single rejection. I understand that architectural details can fall into a gray area and may depend on context.

The problem is the inconsistency.

I constantly see similar facade ornaments, decorative reliefs, architectural masks, small artistic details, communist-era objects, carpet dusters, etc. reaching community voting — and many of them later becoming accepted Wayspots.

Meanwhile, my nominations are often instantly rejected by the automated system before the community even sees them, even when I provide supporting context, artistic references, or historical information.

I also tried different approaches already:

• submitting the ornament itself
• submitting the whole building
• adding historical/artistic context
• adding external references
• improving supporting photos

but the outcome remains the same.

So from a submitter perspective, it becomes very difficult to understand what the actual practical standard is, because similar nominations clearly do pass through the system for other people.

That’s why this feels discouraging. It’s less about “my nomination must be accepted” and more about wanting a more consistent review process between:

• ML auto rejection
• community voting
• appeal decisions

especially for artistic architectural details in historic European cities where decorative facade art is part of the local cultural identity.

[bloodyoushed]

I tried the same (with another building) and they rejected it too

[TjoeMi]

@bloodyoushed

more consistent review process

Wayfarer are run by community. Each nomination are reviewed by different set of reviewer so it will never be consistent. This is especially true for thing in grey area. Things that rejected today can be accepted when you resubmit months later(i am not saying you can spam nomination because that is subject to abuse ladder system). Other than that, sometimes nomination got incorrectly acccepted by reviewer that want more pokestop or by voting ring. But there are check and balance as well. Incorrectly accepted wayspot are just on borrowed time until someone report them. Thats why we never use existing wayspot as basis for acceptance