Nomination unfairly marked as Duplicate - Information Sign of Pieve e Monastero di Santa Maria

[Martinmatt]

Nomination Title: Pannello Informativo: Pieve e Monastero di Santa Maria
Location:43.887952, 10.733722
City: Buggiano Castello (PT)
Country: Italy

Description of the case:
I am appealing the “Duplicate” decision on my recent nomination. Niantic reviewers marked this nomination as a duplicate of the existing Wayspot “Porta di San Martino”.
However, as shown in the attached supporting photos, these are two entirely different objects:
The existing Wayspot is the “Porta di San Martino”, a medieval stone gate/archway.
My nomination is a permanent educational sign titled “Pieve e Monastero di Santa Maria”, which provides historical context about the nearby abbey and the religious itinerary of the village.
Evidence:
In the provided Street View screenshots, you can clearly see the information sign located to the right of the Porta di San Martino. They are distinct entities. The sign meets the eligibility criteria as it promotes exploration and provides historical education about a protected cultural heritage site.
I strategically placed the pin to reflect its real-world location, which happens to be near the gate but represents a completely different subject. Marking it as a duplicate is a factual error.
I kindly ask the Niantic team to review the evidence and restore this nomination as a unique Wayspot.
Thank you for your time.

[salixsorbus]

That is arguably separate to the archway, but the location you have is a problem. The sign is attached to the arch, but you have given a location a considerable distance away and in a different cell, which looks like location abuse.

The sign can only exist where it exists, which would put it about 1m away from the arch wayspot and of no use to anyone for Pokemon Go.

[Martinmatt]

Thank you for the feedback, salixsorbus. I would like to clarify that the placement of the pin was not an attempt to ‘cheat’ or abuse the system. My intention was to ensure that the Wayspot would be easily accessible for players to interact with safely, as I thought its actual position so close to the archway might cause interaction issues or safety concerns near the road. I now realize that the pin must strictly reflect the real-world location regardless of these concerns. I appreciate the explanation and will be more careful with pin placement in the future.

[TjoeMi]

@Martinmatt

My intention was to ensure that the Wayspot would be easily accessible for players to interact with safely, as I thought its actual position so close to the archway might cause interaction issues or safety concerns near the road.

Please note that missplacement of wayspot submission in incorrect location is subject to abuse ladder system. Someone can report you if they think you abuse the system to create more pokestop in empty cell

[paulingzubat]

@Martinmatt

its actual position so close to the archway might cause interaction issues or safety concerns near the road

If the location of the actual object does not facilitate safe pedestrian access, it does not satisfy one acceptance criterion and therefore should not be attempted to be submitted.