Questionable decisions by Niantic reviewers

Over Christmas break I submitted a bunch of things in Sal, Cabo Verde, which has so much to offer in terms of great places for exploration, exercise, or socializing, but not that many wayspots. Since there aren’t many reviewers there, most things sat in queue/voting until recently when the Wayfarer team started grabbing them for internal review. I am very grateful for the extra work they are doing, and most of the things they reviewed have gotten approved. However, I am confused about some of the rejection reasons I have gotten.

This eco center at a popular tourist destination was rejected for being generic, even though it clearly is a great place to explore.



Some more info about the mentioned geological exhibition. Some of the other features like the 3D map of the islands, a neon sign, a scenic view point, and a sculpture (?) have previously gotten accepted.


Then, two communal areas in a resort town have gotten rejected for being on private property, which I find a bit strange.




The area the picnic tables are in(which single family has three picnic tables by the way?) is also shown on the resort website

I will link to a related topic on the island where I could not overturn a decision via appeal, where a local fair trade shop selling hand-crafted items was similarly rejected as a generic business, even though it is very highly rated and has even
won an award. Unusual or unique local shops

Would love to hear people’s thoughts or experiences.

Edit: adding coordinates in case people would like to check out the areas

Blue Eye Eco Center
16.798752,-22.991426

Murdeira Village Picnic Area
16.675983,-22.935102

Board Game area
16.674130,-22.934837

Djunta Mo Art Fair Trade Shop
16.598321,-22.905088

1 Like

I would have accepted these from the evidence shown here, fwiw.

3 Likes

I just realized that the street view for Board Game area at 16.674130,-22.934837 is misleading, as dropping in on the nominated location actually puts you the next street over which does indeed look like private property. I think based on my supporting image it should be clear that it’s by the sidewalk outside of any property fences


It’s easy to see that street view is wrong since imagery is showing the outer bounds of the village on one side when the nomination is supposed to be on a street with houses on both sides

Property lines as shown on OpenStreetMap

However, street view does also show that the picnic tables are in a communal area (several balconies and entrance doors in the background)


Plus confirmed to be part of the resort hotel via OSM

I think these rejections were incorrect. Hopefully staff can correct the reviewing team and help you out :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like

THANK YOU!!! :heart:



5 Likes

Yay!!! Such a wonderful result to get this resolved :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

1 Like