I’m failing to see how the people are the focus and not the object. The people look like ants and are mostly out of the frame.
The supplemental image has a few people in focus but I thought that this is not used in game and is meant to provide context to the surrounding area.
As far as I understand this place is safe to explore, exercise, and be social meeting all of the Wayfarer criteria. So why did my appeal fail? Is the amount of people shown in the first image really too excessive? I actually tried to report a wayspot a few months ago because it had people passing through the photo and that’s when I learned that it was “OK” if its a generally crowded place where you won’t be able to really get a completely empty shot.
I’m including a screenshot of the wayspot I tried to report and got rejected for you all to compare and let me know.
The wayspot you are trying to remove is a legitimate wayspot. It may have an ineligible photo, but that doesn’t mean the wayspot should be removed. If this is one of multiple photos, you can report the photo for removal; if it is the only one, a new photo needs to be added first.
The problem with your main photo is that it has people’s faces clearly visible (the couple at the bottom, slightly left of centr) . If the only people were facing away from the camera, that would probably be OK.
Clearly visible is interesting word choice. I would agree they are visible, but I can’t make out a single identifying feature on them. Following that logic there are a handful of clearly visible faces in the reported wayspot. I can spot 3.
Also, I never said I reported it for removal I just said I tried to report it because I thought people being in the photo at all was not allowed and that’s when I got a response email explaining that people are allowed if its a generally busy area. I think forward and backward facing shouldn’t matter when one photo has them much more in focus than the other. That white shirt man and shirtless man might as well be the wayspot with how much of the photo’s composition they are taking up.
Its pretty disingenuous to say that “they’re backward so its OK” vs “the tiny blurry out of focus face is forward so its NOT ok.” Once my photo is cropped into a circle or square the people along the bottom are entirely removed vs the wayspot that is literally in game and being defended has the people regardless of cropping because that is what it truly means to be the focus of a photo.
It doesn’t help you to be comparing these two photos, for the reason I explained above.
In your main photo, even at the reduced image size, the couple at the bottom can be identified. I advise you cropping the photo (this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do) and retrying. Alternatively, use one of the signs as a proxy for the swimming area.
If you are further than that, you can use the web submit at Niantic Wayfarer to create a draft, which can be done for anywhere (even if the messages suggest it can’t). When you get close enough (within 10km), you can then submit the draft.
This is only a partial solution to the 10km limit, but there is no other solution. You can create unlimited drafts and the “within limit” ones are highlighted to make it easier to know what which ones you can submit.
Well since there are no other ways than to literally go back and there are no edit or change photo options on the submission I am posting in appeals presenting my case in an attempt to get the attention of someone who can do something about it. That’s how I thought this whole thing worked.
I understand that people in foto sometimes hard to avoid. When that happened, try cropping or take foto from different angle. You dont want to to give reviewer any reason for rejection. In your foto, you obviously can crop it a bit to reduce the number of people captured in foto.
Your post raises 2 totally separate queries.
First in my view the exercise area stop should be removed. It is an old submission from 2015 and the photo with a clear recognisable child should not be allowed. There are nearby POI so it really should either go completely or have a blank picture.
In your own case even although it’s a screenshot the people nearest not only are clearly identifiable but they look as though they may be posing for the picture ( not saying you asked them to but realising a picture was being taken they looked at the camera).
This makes it an unacceptable submission.
So unfortunately I don’t think anything went wrong in tge appeals process.
I reckon if you’d cropped it more like this, it’d have been potentially acceptable, as the people are much more distant. Depends if they’re recognisable from the full quality image or not
Yeah, i was chatting with some of my Wayfinder friends over the weekend about how it’s now the time of year when swimming areas are difficult to photograph. It’s always a struggle to find a time when the water looks great but no one is using it, or you can photograph around them.
For me, this is happening with large neighborhood pools. I can’t crop out 30 - 40 people using the pool. In cooler weather, i have the same issue with tennis courts. 10 - 12 sets of courts all full of people enjoying them.
I created the following (I did use AI as these are only as examples) just to show the 2 extremes of “people in photos”. Anything in between are left to the reviewers to make an opinion.
It’s very interesting people are all saying the couple is identifiable. Personally, if you asked me to describe their faces (aka identify them) there isn’t a single thing I could tell you about them besides they have slightly fair skin. But since everyone seems to be convinced they’re identifiable then I guess that’s the verdict
I know its sometime impossible to get foto without any people especially if we are on vacation. But in your case,you can improve your foto by cropping the foto a bit to remove many people.
