So.
I submitted a bridleway marker to the beach rejected during normal reviewing (kind of expected) so appealed the rejection and Niantic agreed it should be a wayspot and it was approved. Happy days.
There is a second bridleway marker on the same path, but to exit the beach, rather than enter. Again, submitted and, under normal review it was rejected.
Submitted the appeal, but this time my appeal was rejected.
In my appeal i noted that you can clearly see a difference in the signs (one says ‘access’, the other ‘exit’). The supporting photo showed the path to the left and google maps clearly shows the path
If Niantics own internal reviews can’t be consistent, how do they expect the peer review process to ever properly work!?
Out of all of my submissions, the only two that were accepted that never should’ve been accepted (I was new to this and didn’t know better) were ones that the community correctly rejected and were accepted on appeal. Inconsistency is not uncommon.
The point i am trying to make is the second marker should also be accepted.
Why would it not? It has a direction arrow, states it is an access route/ path. It is more unique than a ‘public footpath’ arrow marker
Well, yeah, except this isnt a generic direction sign. It is a legitimate waymarker, in the purest sense of the term.
In the UK, Niantic have confirmed that ‘public footpath’ markers (as per below examples) are eligible wayspots. There are hundreds of thousands of those throughout the uk.
This is a bridleway marker, quite unique to those and therefore more worthy of eligibility.
I also appealed two banners that are part of the same art project, and one was approved and the other rejected, with zero logical sense or explanation.
