I recently had a nomination rejected. No reason was given, so I appealed on the grounds that no reason was given. The appeal was then rejected, on the grounds of pedestrian access. The location in question has good pedestrian access, in fact it’s in a place that people going for a walk would regularly pass, so the rejection is wrong, but because it’s an appeal, I can’t appeal again.
I honestly don’t think this process shows respect for the time and effort of volunteers proposing wayspots.
welcome to the forum @d0me5t0s
can you show us a screenshot of your contributions page to confirm there was no reason shown? the rejection reason is supposed to be there between the title and the main photo.
if you are close enough to submit again, and you still believe the point of interest is eligible, then you can try again in a new nomination. i would recommend posting screenshots of the nomination here for feedback though.
Welcome to the community.
If the rejection says “Wayfarer Criteria” or something similar, then it would have been rejected by the ML. The appeal rejection may or may not be accurate. However, if you can screenshot your nomination here, it will help us find a way to help you get it through, if it is eligible.
I checked your submission again and I agree with the reviewer. The eligibility of the object itself is questionable in addition to the safety concerns.
What safety concerns do you have? The location is perfectly accessible on foot. Are you worried people might fall in the water?
As for eligibility of the object, it’s something that’s particularly characteristic of the area, although there aren’t many of them. It’s definitely something that you’d want to be made aware of if you were exploring the area. Maybe it’s more interesting if you rely on the infrastructure to keep your house above water.
If you could post screenshots of your full original submission we may be able to help.
I now see that a reason has been added: "Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The object’s location in question is in the waterbody with no access which does not meet the Wayfarer criteria. "
This doesn’t make any sense. Yes - the object is positioned in the water, but there is pedestrian access to it. You could literally walk up to it, and bend down and touch it. How can they say there is no access?
Hi,
What sort of route is there for pedestrians?
Can you show pictures please?
There’s a path alongside the water. I’ve shown this in the original photos. I don’t have any good pictures immediately handy, but here is one of further along https://photos.app.goo.gl/H8NqcauxFgpxJdq66
The portal in question is in the distance in this shot, but it should give a good enough idea of the kind of access.
Thanks for a picture, but I don’t know what we are meant to be looking at as you haven’t told us about the submission.
Have you resubmitted?
That’s a pretty picture!
But I also can’t tell what you’re submitting. The canal?
Which criteria does it meet - is it a great place to exercise, explore, or socialize? There needs to be a focal point for one of those, like a trail sign (exercise), dock (explore), or pavilion (socialize).
Niantic isn’t trying to build a database of nondescript natural features. That would be billions of Points of Disinterest, instead of POI.
I still have no idea what you tried to nominate, just from this photo. This is why screenshots of your nomination from Contribution Management would be helpful. You don’t need to share the location, if you’re not comfortable with that, but the title/description/photos/supporting info would be good enough. That would give us a good enough idea of what you submitted.