Wayspot Submission for The Floating Garden of South Halstead Riverwalk
Reviewers provided these top reasons for not accepting this submission:
- The submission may obstruct access to emergency or critical services. For example, hospitals, military bases or utility sites
emergency
Nomination may interfere with the operations of emergency services
The real-world location of the nomination appears to obstruct the driveway of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers
2424 S Halsted St, Chicago, IL 60608, USA
This nomination will help people explore the park since it is still kind of new completed during the pandemic in 2022. Its an awesome project that helps explain how floating islands work while actually having one implemented in the river. Its a public park by city ordinance new industrial projects must make the waterfront accessible to the public in the city. Here is more info on this project Prologis â Urban Rivers
|
| Thank you for taking the time to nominate The Floating Garden of South Halstead Riverwalk on Jul 25, 2025. Explorers like you are critical to creating a unique AR map of the world that shapes adventures for yourselves and others. |
Unfortunately, our team has decided not to accept your Wayspot nomination. |
Whilst the emergency services rejection reason is definitely a bit weird here, it doesnât look like you can safely walk up to and onto the garden boat itself, which would potentially cause issues when it comes to the safe pedestrian access requirement.
That being said, I can see the info board about the garden, and this may make a better focal point for your nomination, as it still represents the garden whilst also being both informative and safe to walk up to.
There was a post recently where Niantic admitted the in-house reviewer had pressed the wrong button and assigned the wrong rejection reason. Maybe that happened again?
The info board is completely accessible. Maybe the location could not be confirmed so that is why it got rejected. Which picture is your main nomination photo? (This is not at all clear from your posting here!)
This is tje same OP from that case.
That happened to me yesterday I guess the pressed the wrong button again? 
My main photo is the garden. If that is the issue iâll just resubmit its not a big deal. My info board was to show that the gardens are able to be accessed safely. In my mind I wanted a better picture of the gardens and not of the info board.
It appeared that the op was completely blameless in the rejection reason being the wrong one, but itâs quite something if this has happened twice to the same person.
Statistically, this means it is likely to be happening to a lot of people. Unless the op is the only person whoâs submissions are being picked up and rejected.
youâre right. I Might just resubmit with the main image with the info board. But I actually wanted the garden as the main image. I can always upload a new image on to it. but then its kind of redundant if that happens.
Understandable. Often the better picture is not as good for the review process. What you can do is submit the correct process for the submission (the info board) and then submit in a nice photo afterwards to add onto the wayspot (not ideal, but best scenario.)
(Trail markers have the same problem - they pass better when you take a really close-up picture just of the trail marker, but a wider photo showing the view and where the trail goes is a lot nicer.)
I was hoping it wouldnât be a problem with my supporting image but, it just feels redundant. and the emergency rejections makes less sense.
As a general principle when the rejection text is unhelpful, treat the rejection reason as âit was rejectedâ and ignore the rejection text. Look at what might have caused it to be rejected, fix that and resubmit.
That is easy here - the garden is the wrong photo to use because of accessibility issues, so use the info board.
Great advice! I am also glad that an incorrect rejection reason was reported here, too.
resubmitting is not the problem I can do it right now from my house and I already had a general Idea on how to fix it, switching the photo not a big deal.
This has happened to me twice this week. If I constantly have to go off the general principle would that mean that the rejection text is unreliable? My first question when this happens is, is this a bug?
When things get rejected I ask ââis this warranted?ââ I am usually able to understand whatâs wrong with my nominations without weird rejections, I might need some help with my text here and there, I tweak it and move on. If I feel it was wrongfully rejected Iâll appeal. But I dont feel comfortable appealing with this kind of rejection itâll take a month before I get a new appeal (I usually use up all 2 each month). I might as well resubmit.
So if I appeal based on the current rejection and whoever reviews it rejects it based on a different reason then I just wasted an appeal.
It seems you have the right mindset already. How to approach this depends partly on whether you use all your submission slots.
If you know you can improve a submission and can see why it was rejected, improve and resubmit.
If you are confident that rejection was wrong and you cannot improve a submission, then with spare submission slots I would resubmit, but use appeals if you have more of these (!). It sounds like you use all of your appeals.
Save appeals for submissions that are further away and which are harder to get back to to take different photos. However, use appeals when you would otherwise be wasting them 
Your weird rejections are weirder than normal, but the principle of âthe reviewer(s) didnât like it, can I improve itâ still stands. Donât stress about the rejection - you have reported it and please do so if it happens again (*)
(*) Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is deliberate. This rule works for so many things and it would apply here as well.
Summary: donât appeal this one. Change it and resubmit.
I agree with @hankwolfman
Pretty though the floating garden is, it is not safely accessible.
Unlucky that they picked the wrong reason but âŚâŚ
Hopefully giving them an easy accept will break that cycle 
Your submission pulled in a lot of points which means the reviewers might not follow what the key point isâŚ..keep it simple.
The information board should be easy under explore. Keep it focussed and short and on the board not the garden. You are describing the board not the ecology of the river. So what sort of information is there and get them to look at the floating garden. End of story.
And Good luck
Could you please refresh and check again?
I absolutely hate this classic #signfarer moment whereby if youâd gone the obvious route and nominated yet another info board, itâd have been immediately accepted
Instead we get this situation with a very odd rejection reason and a super cool place to explore being rejected.
Yup. I also agree, I might have forgot to reply. But this post is pertaining to the rejection reason and not the nomination itself.
