Hi I got a concerning E-Mail today:
This was the nomination in case:
I believe most of the reviewers and the team got the older Street view from 2019 taken from a bike: thinking I misplaced the nomination in place:
But there is a Street view also from 2022 that proves the location is there and it is Identical with my supporting image:
I don’t know if this E-Mail is a confirmation of a strike on my account, but if yes this is kinda dissapointing. To my understanding I didn’t violate any rules with this nomination.
Upload of the wayspot Image and description doesn’t work so:
This was the title:
Infotafel Heinrich Hansjakob
This was the description:
Heinrich Hansjakob (1837–1916) war ein badischer Pfarrer, Politiker und Schriftsteller. Mit seinen Heimat- und Volksschriften prägte er das kulturelle Bild Badens und war zeitweise Mitglied des Reichstags. Die Straßenbenennung erfolgte 1913 noch zu seinen Lebzeiten. Hansjakob galt als sehr populärer Volksschriftsteller, seine Schriften enthalten jedoch auch frauenfeindliche und antisemitische Aussagen.
If you want advice on the location issue, please post the wayspot submission coordinates. Take a screenshot from the initial receipt email of the co-ordinates which are shown underneath the two photos. This is the best way of showing the location you chose.
Those co-ordinates are exactly where the POI is. I cannot see any justification for the location warning. There is a “contact us” link in that email - use it.
Reviewers and Niantic won’t have used the /old/ streetview, because what comes up when you drop pegman at those coordinates is the street sign that you have submitted - I can’t find any way of getting any other streetview images.
Thanks for writing in @meleessb ,
We have revoked the Warning on your account. It will not show on your records and will not have any impact on your account whatsoever.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
3 Likes
Oh okay 
My second idea is that maybe the end of the description led the reviewers to select “abuse” as the reason for rejection. Because they saw “ridicule or harassment of a group here”.
Should I now refrain nominating informational signs of such controversal people in the future, to not get into the same situation?
The “Abuse” rejection narrative can be flagged for a nomination for any of the following reasons
* The photo is not yours (e.g., taken from streetview, found on another website)
* The text itself is abusive
* The nomination is controversial and likely to be offensive (e.g., a mural of terrorists)
* Another nomination was abusive and all of yours have been flagged as a consequence
* The wayspot location pin is misplaced
* The wayspot is deliberately misrepresented (e..g., on school property but pretending it isn’t)
* (there may be others)
Since you were flagged for location abuse (this has been revoked, so there is no black mark against you), the “abuse” narrative can be ignored - it was generated automatically due to the flagged location abuse and has no meaning beyond that.
1 Like
