Description: “Please read the supplemental information. This piece of art is distinct - it is one of many painted stones that have been placed in walls all around the community by a local artist. These stones serve as a scavenger hunt and many are meeting spots for walking and running groups. This stone is also NOT temporary. It has been permanently grouted into the wall to ensure it stays in place for all to enjoy.”
Supplementary Information: “Note: This is NOT a “temporary” piece of art. It has been permanently grouted into the wall. This is one of many hand-painted stones placed throughout the neighborhood and local parks by a local artist for a fun scavenger hunt. This one is adjacent to several bus stops and is both a conversation piece for travelers as well as a meeting place for walking groups.”
First reason given for rejection:
"The nomination in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as it seems temporary. If this assessment is not accurate, please resubmit the nomination with additional context. "
After resubmitting with supplemental information that confirms the stone’s permanence, it is rejected for an entirely different reason:
“The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning.”
Meanwhile, several others of these painted stones have been previously approved as Wayspots in the neighborhood.
It’s starting to feel silly with the inconsistent messaging.
I would also like some help understanding “uniqueness and cultural meaning” when I very clearly laid out that these are part of a local scavenger hunt and serve as meeting points for walking/running/Pokemon Go playing groups. If this isn’t “unique” or has any “cultural meaning”, I have to wonder why some of the Wayspots in my area like “Shell gas station” and “Circle K” exist.
It sounds like reviewers are objecting to the nomination on many grounds, that’s why the messaging will seem inconsistent.
From the supporting photo, this looks like it might be on the outer wall of a Single Family Private Residential Property (SFPRP, aka a “house”) that would make it ineligible.
If it’s not on the boundary of an SFPRP then it does look temporary and perhaps even if it has been placed there deliberately to submit as a wayspot. You need to establish notability in the supporting text, so if there’s a news article (for example) about the scavenger hunt then that’s a good way to support that. If the object is visible on StreetView over a number of years then that can help to establish notability, you should mention if it can be seen like that. As it is, the supporting information gives no ancillary information that can be used to prove notability.
Since it is hard to see the POI in the supporting photo, tell reviewers where to find it (e.g., “on the far left below the hedge”), because supporting photos that don’t show the POI are a red flag to lots of reviewers.
The next reason I’d reject is because it looks temporary. /You/ need to prove it isn’t, since objects like this are very easily put there just to create wayspots. Visibility on streetview (not photospheres for this POI) helps - mention that. Links to websites help.
You have given this as the description. If this is what you wrote in the description then you have misunderstood its purpose. The description is the text that will appear in game and potentially other places. So it should not reference the supplementary info or any game references at all. Information about it being a meeting point is also best left to the supplementary information. It can say about the project and the artists name.
Your photo doesn’t show the grouting and it is difficult to see the rock in the supplementary photo.
Are there any online links that show the rocks being grouted into position?
The advantage of the supplementary info is you can put links in there to expand and backup what you say.
Remember that each time your submission is put forward for review it is highly likely that it is assessed by a different set of people. So although you are getting frustrated at the responses and having to write this submission again the reviewer is likely to be seeing it for the first time, and can be baffled or put off by someone using capitals to “shout” at them.
Hi @ForTheHalibut
Welcome to the forum
I also have a little to add.
Not long ago there was a change at the rejection reasons shown.
Something which have been marked as temporary can now come out as “not distinct” and therefore phrased as ‘of no cultural meaning’.
Thanks for the replies. For clarification, that was the description I gave for my appeal, not for the nomination. I didn’t make that very clear.
So if I’m to understand correctly, then the only way to get this Waypoint through would be to:
Somehow get the almost-completely hidden grouting in the photo
or
Find a YouTube video or something that shows the rocks being grouted into place(?)
Find some local news article to prove it was placed by a local artist
or
Find some local news article that mentions that pedestrians have used these stones for a scavenger hunt
I don’t think any of these are possible, which is just defeating. I was going to reference the other painted stones being approved as Wayspots, but then I read in the criteria that apparently you’re not allowed to reference other related Wayspots?
I have to say, submitting Wayspots has become an incredibly frustrating endeavor when we have to go to lengths like this to argue for the relevance and notability of unique neighborhood curiosities, when, as I’d mentioned in my OP, the rest of the neighborhood is full of Wayspots that are just nondescript gas stations, Mcdonalds restaurants and convenience stores.
What’s most frustrating is that if the person reviewing this nomination actually lived in the area, they would immediately recognize it and say something like “oh yeah, that’s one of the painted rocks. My running group meets at that one. There’s another a few blocks away and I found one at the park.”
You could look a it this way - if you were reviewing, and saw a submission that was a painted stone lying on a wall, with no /evidence/ that it was permanent (merely stating that it is permanent is not sufficient), surely you would be suspicious if you didn’t already know the POI was legitimate.
It’s up to submitters to provide enough evidence to convince reviewers. Certainly some reviewers will do various google searches to find it themselves if the submitter hasn’t helped out, but a lot won’t.
As for the junk in your neighbourhood - if it’s actually junk, submit removal requests. Some junk makes it through review, but it doesn’t change the criteria for what is allowed. Also, some things look like junk to some people, but not to others (e.g., some trail markers).
Thanks for clearing up the description misunderstanding
It’s not that you are not allowed to reference other accepted wayspots, it’s just they are not relevant as such,.
A repeated point made is that although it seems intuitive to look at other wayspots - I did that when I started - they are not an indicator of what is acceptable now. Some things that shouldn’t be accepted are and they risk being removed.
The submission gets reviewed by an unknown number of people. And local is a large distance. It may even be reviewers from anywhere in your country.
This is why providing the links to information is important. You have to assume they have no idea of the situation in your town and to show evidence. The problem is painting a rock and placing it could be something that is faked. And reviewers can have issues if they are found to have not been taking care and accepting fakes. Yes it’s awful that innocent parties get caught up in this but that is how it has to be.
Are there no Facebook or the like postings around this project?
“Are there no Facebook or the like postings around this project?”
Unfortunately not. I tried to find information about the project itself, but it wasn’t something ‘official’. In the sense that, while the stones were painted by a noteworthy local artist, this particular project was just his efforts at adding some beautification and “fun” to the community. Information about the project has been spread by word-of-mouth or when people encounter him painting and/or grouting them in places. He didn’t make a grand announcement or advertise it.
Some of the stones have been grouted into walls (like this one, and at least 5 others that the community has found so far), some he’s scattered in hidden places around local parks for kids to find (those ones would not qualify as valid Wayspots).
It’s also a relatively new project and just missed the last time the Google car came around to update the streetview images.
So I’m really at a loss for what I can do, which is a bummer, because my community is full of neat little things for pedestrians to discover as they roam around. But I just feel like I can’t be bothered to nominate things anymore because they’re immediately auto-rejected by AI and then I only have 2 appeals to use every 20 days, and those are wasted trying to plead my case within really inconsistent criteria. I spend all this time trying to get my photos “just right”, crafting thoughtful descriptions and supplemental information, and it’s just a waste of time. Gives a sense of “why bother?”
I would start with naming the artist and putting a link to his website/socials in the supporting information or even posting here, maybe we can find an angle you aren’t seeing. I don’t believe you should always have to know these things but this is an odd case.
To be honest the way you’re describing it, it sounds like vandalism so I would try to find some kind of supporting info or give up on these making it in.
With all due respect, if this is how Wayfarer reviewers look at nominations like these, then I think I’m just going to give up on trying to contribute nominations to the community. It’s not worth the effort.
I’m sorry we couldnt find a way that would help you. The idea about the artist is a good one.
Everyone can become a reviewer you just log in to the website read the information and start. They are not a separate group of people. Its a great way to appreciate how your own submissions must come over. My learning about what made a good submission went through a radical improvement once I started to review. I realised how it must look to someone else which was a hard, but necessary lesson to learn.
If you have success with the stones it would be great to hear it as you would be able to pass on what worked for someone else to benefit.
U can try few more submission before deciding anything but u nd to understand small object are hard to find. Not to mention its credibility. I can paint small rock myself and put it somewhere i want wayspot. If you can find more supporting evidence, its good. If not you should move on and find another nomination. There are many more out there.
Agreed, there are many more out there, the problem is that it seems impossible to get them through. I’ve tried. For years. For the record, this painted stone debacle isn’t a hill I’ve chosen to die on, it’s simply just the straw that broke the camel’s back for me.
I’ve had perfectly valid nominations that quite literally match every single point in the criteria be rejected, and upon appeal, the reason being either blank, completely vague, or just generic “not culturally relevant”.
Some greatest hits:
A Cultural Centre being rejected upon appeal for “not being culturally relevant”.
A Little Free Library on a public greenspace, on a city sidewalk, with its own official city registration number, being rejected as “private property”
A park with drinking fountains, meticulously-planted flower beds, sculptures and benches being rejected as a “natural feature”.
A clubhouse in a beach community that is used as a defacto town hall, with a plaque out front, supplying supplemental information including links to their website and livestreams of their townhall meetings, being rejected as “not significant” and the reviewer claiming there was no proof it was relevant to the community.
An enormous jade statue on a public beach being rejected as “not unique”.
With a paltry 2 appeals every 20 days, it’s so disheartening to waste them not knowing which one is actually “invalid” or if the reviewer was just having a bad day and decided that a man-made statue should be a “natural feature”.
And now we’re calling murals and pieces of art “vandalism”. Not just stopping at saying “oh, maybe that’s not noteworthy enough”, but straight-up calling it “vandalism” as if its a public defacement, that’s just an objectively bad-faith take. It makes it feel like a lot of reviewers treat Wayfarer as a program that is less about creating points of interest for this community game, and more about preventing them.
I even see rural players (where it’s notoriously hard to find points of interest) having to pull up historical bylaws and city zoning regulations, measuring the distance between a sidewalk and a fence, providing the definition of sidewalks just to prove that a Little Free Library should remain a Wayspot. It’s a Little Free Library, people!
I apologize for the tangential rant, but it’s such a chore to try to contribute meaningfully to this game.
Vandalism might sound too strong a word but take it as “Not Official” or “Not Authorised”.
When authorised these are likely to be permanant but this not always true when they are not authorised.
Sometimes you just have to let it go and move on to the next thing. You tried, it didn’t work this time, try something else. Nothing stopping you returning to it at a later date.
I’m sorry my word choice set you off but I didn’t actually say it was vandalism until you overreacted. I said the way you describe it makes it sound like it so having something to back you up would help your case. I’ve had plenty of things I believe meet criteria get rejected and I either keep trying with different photos and descriptions or I move on. I helped my friends find a YouTuber do an episode talking about a historical tree when they just couldn’t find a way to get it to pass even with appeals and a link to a historical site. It finally passed!
So I understand your frustration and was trying to help show you that you weren’t giving your nomination the best sales pitch. You keep saying it’s by a noteworthy local artist and you know who it is. Why wouldn’t you name them even in your appeal to Niantic? That’s your best selling point if they are known for these kinds of projects. But just saying a mysterious artist goes around grouting painted rocks into walls is not putting your best foot forward.
Good luck though, I hope you don’t give up trying to improve the game for your community!
Just a reminder, this is what is typically seen as vandalism, not unique art:
I don’t see this painted rock as vandalism, especially if a local artist painted these to be part of a scavenger hunt around the area. Most likely those in the area were made aware of the project as well, otherwise they may not have wanted the painted rocks to be placed.
Just a reminder, unauthorized altering of property can be considered vandalism not just tagging. That is just one example that Niantic used. Are you just being contrary right now because we had a disagreement because I am certain you’ve called out things that were not tags as vandalism in other discussions? These mandala rocks can also be purchased on Etsy pretty easily.
But regardless I am all for the OP getting these passed if they can prove their permanence. I have no problem with painted rocks and rock gardens as wayspots.
