My appeal was rejected for “not having a pedestrian access” which is completely false. The waypoint is located in a remote hamlet in Alps with less than 100 residents. In these kind of small villages there aren’t sidewalks because there aren’t many cars and most roads are narrow. People just walk on the side of the road. That’s just how it is in places like this.
This waypoint is a trail marker for a very beautiful trail and the road where the trail marker is located is part of the trail.
I’m asking an overturning of the rejection. Thanks
3 Likes
Clearly that sign is meant for drivers to read.
I think you’re joking but just to add additional information the sign says: time: 20 minutes, and difficulty: easy and then medium.
It’s clearly for hikers lol
1 Like
They are joking, and often do.
One thing that you didn’t include in your supporting info is that there are no sidewalks here, but it is safe for pedestrians. Being that wasn’t included, I have to agree with both the initial and appeals team rejection.
You have to tell us why this is safe to access for pedestrians in your nomination, especially if there are no sidewalks. Even nominations I submit that are by sidewalks I note this in the supporting info, along with anything else that makes them safe to access.
I would submit this again and provide better supporting info in regards to why it’s safe to access.
2 Likes
I didn’t say it in the nomination additional info but I said it in the appeal infos in a very similar way to what I wrote in this post . And the guy that reviewed my appeal still rejected it even after reading my comment. It’s clear to me that the guy that reviewed my appeal either didn’t read my explanation about the sidewalks or he did read it but he is incompetent. That’s why I’m asking for the overturning of the rejection. This is a valid waypoint
4 Likes
The appeals team is known to side with whatever the reviewers voted for, and I still agree they made the right decision. You need to resubmit with the additional info for the community, not just for the appeals team.
You should never expect the appeals team to side with you, which is why you should take this as a learning lesson on how to better provide supporting info with your initial submission, not just for the appeals team.
So what’s even the point of appeals? Sorry but I just think you’re wrong.
The job of the guy reviewing appeals should be to check the original submission AND the appeal comment and then come to a conclusion.
Not how you say, just check the original submission and then side with the community even if I clarified and corrected the community rejections in the appeal informations.
So in this case the appeal reviewer should have checked the nomination. He would have seen “rejected for no pedestrian access”. He then should have looked at my comment in the appeal that clarifies that and then he should have accepted the nomination. Refusing it just means he is incompetent because this is clearly a valid waypoint and with the extra infos I gave him in the appeal informations it should have been very easy to review it.
The fact that I didn’t write “safe pedestrian access” in the original nomination is irrelevant here because I did it in the appeal infos and the appeal reviewer sees both the nomination and the appeal info
2 Likes
The fact that anyone insists you write this at all anywhere is pretty ridiculous.
You shouldn’t need to explain to people that text this small on a sign this small is not intended to be read with binoculars.
4 Likes
You didn’t give the community all the info they needed to approve this, and that is what is needed. Even if you appeal and give extra info, they may still side with the community.
I will give you an example of a nomination that I had to appeal for a local Thai restaurant. Local restaurants can be hard to get through in community voting, especially if you don’t explain why it fits criteria. I had even given the link to their website to prove it was locally owned in my supporting info, but it was still rejected by the community. I did have to appeal it, and I didn’t have to provide much more info that what I initially did, and it was approved.
It is up to us Wayfarers to provide as much info as possible when nominating, and even something as small as noting that a place is safe for pedestrians can go far. So many Wayfarers do the bare minimum for their nominations and wonder why they get rejected, even if they meet criteria. You can’t do the bare minimum and expect results in your favor.
2 Likes
Dude this is becoming long and redundant.
Also don’t lie saying I did the bare minimum because it’s simply not true and it makes you lose credibility.
You put a lot of informations in the original nomination. I put a lot of information in the appeal informations. Same thing.
Also I wrote “safe pedestrian access” in the appeal informations which is the same thing as the extra infos so I don’t understand your obsessions with repeating I didn’t write it. I did.
And again, I’m getting tired. This is a clearly valid waypoint, it’s great for exercise and exploration, it has safe access, it is permanent, it’s not on school or private property, etc. Stop nitpicking. Thanks
I’m not going to go on, as you are not open to civil constructive criticism. You cannot accept that you may need to provide more info when you initially make a nomination.
I will leave with this: about 95% of my nominations are approved by ML these days, and I go above and beyond to provide as much information as I can in my supporting info. I almost never have to use my appeals; the last time I did was in June for a monument that ML had marked as a duplicate simply due to one of the 4 monuments already having a Wayspot, but this one was for a different war, just a similar design.
Man with the first part of your comment you’re projecting. You are the one not open to criticism. You’re obsessed with one irrelevant thing and refuse to change your mind. I will repeat this again and again: the waypoint is valid. You don’t have to write “safe pedestrian access” to make it valid. It’s ridiculous.
And the second part is completely irrelevant and off topic
2 Likes
Fully agree that there is nothing wrong in expecting better service.
The paid reviewer should be held to higher standards than the volunteer.
The paid reviewer is meant to be the fail safe for when the volunteers make an obvious error.
We should always remember that the submission is important to to the originator.
Looks like you will just have to submit again. The thing we can all agree on is that this can be a frustrating experience.
5 Likes
Thank you for your response. I agree with you
1 Like
There pedestrian access with extreme caution of your surroundings, then there safe pedestrian access. Just because something is meant to be viewed by pedestrians doesnt mean its safe for Niantic games.
1 Like
The current system is leaning heavily towards absurdity causing frustrations and annoyances for human reviewers and submitters.
I have submitted trail markers, restaurants, plaques etc recently that have way less explanation than yours and Emily has accepted them within a day.
Niantic themselves have been adding Wayspots that are extremely questionable in terms of eligibility, location and even existing at all.
There’s a thread on here about how ratings and reviews have become a slog and incomprehensible.
There’s a thread about reports that Niantic appeal have incorrectly rejected. More about other appeals that are baffling.
There’s a thread about… You get the drift by now.
I personally find it extremely tedious and boring to be Waysplained to by other users about how I’m supposed to write a thesis and take photos that Philippe Halsman would be proud of just to get a Wayspot accepted.
I also don’t blame @DTrain2002 for doing so. Niantic are at fault for their ambivalence and lack of care over the system.
11 Likes
I agree with SlyerZDK.
The voters should have seen this too, after all, as a human being you should also take into account the environment where something is placed of course, a computer cannot do this yet.
This seems like a typical alpine village to me. If there are no ski areas nearby, it is quite boring in such villages.
Most alpine villages have no more than 100 inhabitants.
So no footpaths are built there because there are hardly any people.
One would not place a sign like that at a dangerous point. So this should not have been rejected.
1 Like
Yeah had the same kind of issue.
Was given “not having pedestrian access” then Niantic response was it’s a normal parking area and has no significance and labelled as a “generic business” . . . but it’s the church car park . . the Church itself has a stop on the road that runs parallel, so by their own logic that is also a “generic business” if so why is it a stop!? Plus there is several Church car park pokestops around my area including an “overflow car park”(!) . . seems to be one rule from some and another for others.
As an example of that, when a temporary large metal spider was put down near the main road last year for Halloween someone submitted it and the stop was in the game literally a day after the spider appeared! It’s still in the game even though it was gone a week after Halloween!!
1 Like
Welcome to the forum @steveje28 !
We could help you make sense of this better if you want to post screenshots. I can’t imagine how a place to park cars at a church meets any of these criteria
- A great place for exploration
- A great place for exercise
- A great place to be social with others
Niantic has said in other posts that the rejection reason showing is not always what the appeals team was trying to say. In this case, I think they were trying to say that this is generic.
I know it is frustrating when you see things in game that don’t meet criteria any better than your nomination does. You can report things for removal like that temporary decoration.
I don’t even bother submitting anything anymore. I put trails as suggestions and still got rejected. I have put popular social spots with sidewalks as suggestions and still got rejected. It’s a complete waste of time tbh.
1 Like