This is a case where a appeal was not approved due to pedestrian accessibility.
The coordinates are 33.3738676, 132.6971462.
This road has a sidewalk on the south side (on the right in the photo) and a roadside strip on the north side, both of which are normally accessible to pedestrians in Japan.
In fact, there is a private house and a bus stop about 300 m west of this location, where of course pedestrians walk normally.
Without seeing the actual nomination, I can’t really comment in good faith. I could summise the, what appears to be, seating area is what’s being nominated? If so, whilst there is public access, I would ask the question about safety.
Edit: Ok, it’s the signage and not the seating area. My point still stands as to the safety issue.
Bah oui , cest normal que cest pas accepte , tu as vu ou ton panneau se trouve , cest en plein milieu de la route , je suis daccord avec @P1dg3ySlayer , meme moi je taurais refuser en vote pour la securite , a partir du moment ou y a pas de trottoir ou un chemin de terre pour la securite des pietons , tu peux oublier
Please read the OP’s opinion carefully first before replying. In Japan, the outside of the unbroken white line indicating that a road is demarcated is considered a roadside strip and is for pedestrians and bicycles. Cars and motorcycles are not allowed to pass. It is not a dangerous place to use skeletal markings.
For safe pedestrian access, you need to be able to physically stand at/touch the object whilst being safe. Even if we ignore the lack of an actual footpath on that side of the road, you would need to be a mountain goat to be able to stand on such a steeply sloped surface and physically stand at the location of the object, so I can understand the rejection for safe pedestrian access.
If Japan’s roadside strips（路側帯） are deemed unsafe for pedestrians under the Rejection Criteria, then Wayspots can only be built on maintained sidewalks and private property. That’s just too ridiculous.
Moi je te dit ça , cest ce que je pense mais techniquement cest les wayfarer du japon qui ont vote non aux wayspot , si ça ete refuse en appel , cest que niantic ont donne raison au vote de depart .
They explicitly mention roadways/highways as being a concern. In your photos it clearly shows a pedestrian sidewalk on the right. But on the left which would be adjacent to the wayspot along the ridge, there is only the white line. I know you have explained that this is a protected area for pedestrians and cyclists, but it is quite different from the sidewalk on the other side.
Niantic often sides with the more cautious choice when it comes to player safety. This may be a tough decision to overturn.
I don’t know if the language translates well, but the Japanese information only mentions highways. In other words, there is no item in the information to which this candidate applies.
Below is a copy and paste from the English translation. As I don’t know details of this roadway I cannot tell which item it matches with most closely. But please note it starts with the phrase “Dangerous locations include, but are not limited to…” Meaning they are sharing examples but not an exhaustive list.
Dangerous locations include, but are not limited to, a highway/freeway, bridge with car traffic, crossing a waterway (pond, lake, river etc.), airport runways, railway tracks, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers.
I respect and understand the intent of the white line intentionally and legally protecting pedestrians. I would still hesitate to suggest that it’s safe for somebody to be potentially encouraged to be walking and focused on an AR game, while a driver who may also be distracted by an AR game, might move over the line just a little bit. Of course, legally Niantic didn’t make them do it, but I try to avoid encouraging locations where being distracted by an AR phone game could make you unsafe.
I think for the purpose of eligibility, you would need to focus on the ability to safely access the sign from the area behind the fence, or stairwell itself.
Obviously, we do not have a good understanding of the area. The person appealing must present as much information as possible to persuade Niantic.
This may be a problem with the Wayfarer interface. This nomination is from 2021, probably the result of the old method of judging with 5 stars. The result of this appeal is that there is no secure access. And the reasons for rejection of the community shown in the image attached in the second comment are “walking access” and “unsafe route”. However, the text of the OP’s appeal states that it is not temporary and that it meets the eligibility criteria, and does not mention safe access. Since only two reasons for rejection are shown, it is likely that the appeal text was sent without noticing the two reasons related to safe access because they were hidden under “not temporary or visually unique” and “other disapproval criteria”. Had you been able to state that there is a roadside strip and that it is safe for pedestrians, the team’s review might have been different.
This appeal states the following.
original Japanese text:
城川町の教育委員会が地元に伝わる伝承を記した看板で、文化的な価値はあると思います。長年は風説で劣化して読みにくくなるほど昔から存在するもので、一時的なものではありません。
English translation:
This sign is of cultural value as it describes a local tradition that has been passed down by the Shirakawa Town Board of Education. Because it has existed for a long time, it is not temporary, as it has deteriorated and become difficult to read due to exposure to the elements. This has been around that long and is not temporary.
Have to agree with this. We also don’t know if there was anything included in the supporting info in regards to how to safely access this sign, such as from the fenced in area. Noting safe access in supporting info is important if there’s a possible that others could see a nomination as unsafe. Since the supporting info hasn’t been provided by the OP, we can say whether or not it was provided.
There has already been lots of helpful insights into your submission and appeal outcome @jeanlucpicachu. And I have learned something about arrangements for pedestrians in Japan
My comment to add to concerns about safety would be that the lined pedestrian area also appears to be the drainage area for rainfall. So for me it would raise a concern that during wet weather it would be not a pedestrian friendly zone.
My advice at this point would be to recommend a fresh nomination with an up to date photo. You can then use all the feedback here to present your nomination and in the supporting photo and information address the points that are likely to cause a problem.
The Wayspot I nominated at a travel destination 180 miles away has become APPEAL NOT ACCEPTED. The Wayfarer team believes that the ruling on the safety of pedestrians is too strict. @NianticAaron, would you please take a look at Japan’s road traffic law?
An explanatory page with easy-to-understand images about roadside strips（路側帯）. 
in Japanese
information only mentions highways. In other words, there is no item in the information to which this candidate applies.
About the Japanese 路側帯（Shoulder/Roadside）