Repeated Rejection of a Historic Water God Stone Monument in Rural Japan – Pedestrian Access Question

[Nena]

Hello, my name is Nena from Japan.

I am posting here because I would like to hear opinions from Wayfinders outside Japan.

On the Japanese Nomination Support forum, I have been documenting several rural historical Wayspot nominations that have been repeatedly rejected.

If you are interested, please see the following URL:

https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/c/shinsei-support/63

Here, I will post an English translation and summary of this case.

This is a report regarding the rejection result of the “Water God Stone Monument at Kanbo Pond” nomination.

I analyzed the inscriptions on the monument through repeated trial and error, and I also revised the description text and photographs before submitting the nomination again.

The result was as follows.

Rejection email screenshot:

Wayspot nomination: Water God Stone Monument at Kanbo Pond

Result: Rejected
Upgraded nomination
Date: 2026-05-12

Main rejection reason given by reviewers:

“The location may not be safe for pedestrian access or may not be publicly accessible.”

Rejection details screenshot:

Wayspot nomination: Water God Stone Monument at Kanbo Pond

Result: Rejected
Upgraded nomination
Date: 2026-05-12

Main rejection reason given by reviewers:

"The location may not be safe for pedestrian access or may not be publicly accessible.

Main nomination photo:

Description

A Water God stone monument located on the shore of “Kanbo Pond,” an agricultural irrigation and flood-control reservoir in Kamichigi, Mihama Town, Mie Prefecture, Japan.

The front face is engraved with the characters “Water God,” although the lower inscription has become difficult to read due to weathering.

The right side contains the names of several local contributors, while the left side contains Meiji-era dates and additional local names, though some parts are difficult to decipher because of erosion.

This monument has been preserved by local residents for many years and continues to represent the history of irrigation management, flood control, and local water-related folk beliefs in the region.

Supplemental Information

This is a permanently fixed Water God stone monument located on the shore of “Kanbo Pond,” a reservoir used for agriculture and flood control.

The lower embankment area of the pond consists of a slightly elevated earthen shoreline, and the monument can be approached by descending stone steps along the route.

Near the entrance to the pond are water management facilities and maintenance stairs, and the surrounding area continues to receive regular grass cutting and vegetation maintenance.

The supplemental photographs show the inscriptions, contributor names, surrounding positional relationship, and the pedestrian access route to the monument.

Reference Google Maps 360 Images

Water God Stone Monument

Full View of Kanbo Pond

I also prepared reference videos showing the pedestrian access route and GPS verification.

Pedestrian access video

• Street View starting point: Kanbo Housing Complex signboard
  (33.8392113, 136.0127646)

YouTube pedestrian access video

カンボ池までの軽い散歩道

YouTube GPS verification video

カンボ池までの軽い散歩道（GPSリアルタイム情報）

Supplemental photo

Right side of the monument

Left side of the monument

Close-range view of the monument

Long-range view of the monument and surrounding area

Water God Stone Monument at Kanbo Pond with GPS watermark

One thing that personally felt unusual to me this time was the review speed.

2026/05/12

Around 8:00
I applied an Upgrade after removing the nomination from hold status.

Around 12:00
After analyzing the inscriptions on the monument, I revised the description text. The nomination entered voting immediately after the revision.

17:37
Rejection email received.

The rejection reason was:

“The location may not be safe for pedestrian access or may not be publicly accessible.”

For this nomination, I provided the following supplemental materials:

• Google Maps 360 images

• Unedited pedestrian access video

• GPS verification video

• Surrounding area photographs

• Pedestrian approach route photographs

Of course, I understand that the final judgment is based on Niantic and reviewer criteria.

However, even with this amount of pedestrian safety verification material provided, the nomination still received this rejection reason within a very short period of time.

Because of this, I became curious about:

“Which specific part was considered unsafe for pedestrian access?”

In rural mountain areas and around rivers or reservoirs in Japan, there are many locally maintained stone monuments, shrines, and historical objects that are approached via stone steps, embankments, or unpaved access paths.

So this case made me wonder how Wayfarer reviewers generally interpret the boundary of “safe pedestrian access” under the current criteria.

I would sincerely appreciate any objective opinions or feedback for future reference.

P.S.

I understand that rural Japanese locations can sometimes appear unusual or difficult to evaluate compared to urban nominations.

That is one reason why I wanted to hear opinions from Wayfinders outside Japan as well.

Thank you very much for reading.

[salixsorbus]

(I haven’t read through the entire opening post due to its length, but followed the relevant thread, so have an awareness of the issue.)

My understanding of pedestrian access is that it needs to be safe for (authorised) people to stand at the precise location of the wayspot. However, there is the additional element that you have to be able to safely get to that location.

This second clause is why wayspots on roundabouts are generally rejected, as you cannot normally walk across safely to the centre of the roundabout.

However, I suspect that a marker on top of a mountain would be eligible even if you can only get there by climbing.

With this one, I think the local reviewers are being too cautious. Clearly this is meant to be accessed by people on foot.

(The appeal reviewer(s) are no better, but they tend to stick with the community decision unless there is a blatant error, which isn’t the case here.)

[Nena]

I would like to share the final result of my appeal and the additional verification I performed afterward.

First, I am attaching:

1. A screenshot of the rejection email
2. A screenshot of the rejection reason screen

The rejection reasons included:

• unsafe pedestrian access
• possibly not publicly accessible

After receiving this result, I wanted to verify the pedestrian access issue as objectively as possible.

For that reason, I used Gemini to analyze two YouTube videos:

• a walking route video
• a GPS-synced route video

I used Gemini because the same YouTube URLs and the same prompt can be reviewed by other people as well, making the verification more reproducible and less dependent on my own subjective explanation.

Below is the exact prompt I used.

【Prompt given to Gemini】

Please analyze the following two videos for route continuity, terrain consistency, GPS synchronization, and pedestrian accessibility.

【Video URLs】

1. Walking route video:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35mVnfxW8U

2. GPS-synced route video:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODdn8yNWy9E&t=253s

【Items to verify】

1. Route continuity

• Check whether the walking route appears continuous.
• Check for unnatural cuts, jumps, warping, or editing artifacts.
• Determine whether the movement speed and camera behavior are consistent with normal walking.

2. GPS and terrain consistency
   Please verify whether the following elements are consistent with the video footage:

• GPS movement
• terrain and elevation
• road shape
• embankment structure
• pond/reservoir layout
• surrounding structures and fences

3. Timeline analysis
   Please summarize the environmental changes approximately every 1 minute.

For example:

• 0:00–1:00
• 1:00–2:00
• 2:00–3:00

For each section, briefly describe:

• current location status
• surrounding environment
• approach progress
• pedestrian accessibility

4. Pedestrian accessibility and safety evaluation
   Please objectively analyze whether the route appears walkable and reasonably safe under normal daytime conditions.

Please evaluate:

• whether normal pedestrian access appears possible
• whether the route width is sufficient for walking
• whether the terrain appears dangerous
• whether there are obvious hazards, collapses, or restricted areas

Also include a final “Safety Level” evaluation using one of the following categories:

• Extremely Safe
• Generally Safe
• Neutral / Ordinary
• Somewhat Dangerous
• Dangerous
• Extremely Dangerous

Please explain:

• why that safety level was selected
• which visible elements in the footage support that conclusion

5. Cross-video consistency
   Please determine whether the two videos appear to depict:

• the same location
• the same route
• the same target area

【Important】

Please prioritize objective analysis based on:

• visible evidence
• GPS behavior
• terrain
• structures
• road conditions
• walking continuity

Please clearly separate:

• objectively verifiable facts
  from
• assumptions or speculation.

Please respond entirely in English.

【Gemini’s response】

Based on the comprehensive video analysis and GPS telemetry review, here is the detailed evaluation of the requested items.

1. Route Continuity

Continuous Walking:
The footage appears fully continuous and covers a continuous physical progression without logical gaps.

Editing & Artifacts:
No unnatural cuts, jump-cuts, digital warping, or artificial processing modifications are present. The transition of frames occurs normally.

Movement Speed & Camera Behavior:
The movement speed is highly consistent with a standard, continuous human walking pace. The slight organic vertical oscillation matches a handheld or body-mounted recording device during regular walking traversal.

2. GPS and Terrain Consistency

The telemetry data extracted from the GPS-synced video matches the corresponding visual landmarks perfectly.

GPS Movement:
The blue positional dot moves continuously along the designated mountain road, matching the forward walking progression without unexpected lag or teleportation.

Terrain, Elevation, and Road Shape:
The video visualizes a winding, sloped asphalt pathway progressing through a mountain orchard/forest environment. The map details a multi-turn winding switchback structure, which accurately corresponds to the repeating curves seen in the footage.

Embankment & Reservoirs:
The final destination perfectly aligns with the geographical markings of “Kambo Pond” (カンボ池), verifying that the water reservoir layout seen in the video matches the localized satellite infrastructure map.

Structures and Fences:
The agricultural nets, protective wire fences, and retaining structures seen along the road match the standard agricultural practices expected for the terrain layout shown on the map grid.

3. Timeline Analysis (Environmental Changes)

0:00–1:00

Current Location Status:
Lower approach sector of the winding agricultural road.

Surrounding Environment:
Flanked by cultivated terraced orchards, protective farming fences, and light mountain foliage under clear daylight.

Approach Progress:
Early phase, navigating the initial straight stretch and approaching the lower switchback bend.

Pedestrian Accessibility:
Smooth, fully asphalted ground surface allowing completely unhindered passage.

1:00–2:00

Current Location Status:
Intermediate transition ascending the mountain curves.

Surrounding Environment:
Dense mountain greenery begins to line the edges of the road, alongside continued agricultural fencing structures.

Approach Progress:
Ascending steadily along the winding curve segments mapped out in the central section.

Pedestrian Accessibility:
The asphalt path remains solid and unobstructed, with clear sightlines and standard traction.

2:00–3:00

Current Location Status:
Upper section approaching the proximity of the reservoir.

Surrounding Environment:
The landscape opens up slightly as the path edges closer to the natural water basin area.

Approach Progress:
Approaching the final turns that descend toward the target destination.

Pedestrian Accessibility:
Fully walkable with no degradation of the asphalt quality or physical obstacles.

4. Pedestrian Accessibility and Safety Evaluation

Access Feasibility:
Normal pedestrian access is fully possible. The path requires no specialized climbing or physical navigation equipment.

Route Width:
The road is wide enough to function comfortably as a single-lane vehicle path, providing more than ample clearance width for multiple pedestrians walking side-by-side.

Terrain and Structural Hazards:
The terrain does not display any immediate dangerous features. There are no signs of visible structural collapses, fallen rocks, or landslide damage along the asphalt.

Restricted Areas:
No explicit “No Trespassing” signs or physical blockades prevent advancement down the pathway.

Final Safety Level:
Generally Safe

Reasoning:
The entire route consists of a well-maintained, clear asphalt roadway. There is an absence of active hazardous elements, steep unprotected drop-offs on the immediate walking surface, or ground instability.

Supporting Evidence:
The stable footing provided by the paved asphalt, regular placement of agricultural fencing, low-grade slope profile, and unobstructed sightlines throughout the video support an orderly and safe walking condition during the day.

5. Cross-Video Consistency

Same Location:
Yes

Same Route:
Yes

Same Target Area:
Yes

Verification Details:
The landmark features—including the specific sequence of orchard wire fences, the concrete road borders, the foliage composition, and the eventual arrival at Kambo Pond—are identical in both clips. The second video acts as a direct validation tool, overlaying the active position onto Google Maps to confirm that the physical environment recorded corresponds exactly to the mapped trail.

6. Verifiable Facts vs. Assumptions

Objectively Verifiable Facts:

• The path is fully paved with asphalt.
• The camera progresses continuously without cuts.
• The telemetry coordinates track an active path heading toward Kambo Pond.
• The environment contains terraced orchard lands and clear water reservoirs.

Assumptions or Speculation:

• Assumption: The road is assumed to be an active agricultural farm road based on the presence of cultivation nets, though no active farmers or vehicles appear during the specific recording duration.
• Assumption: Nighttime or heavy weather conditions could potentially change the safety dynamics, such as lack of streetlights, but this analysis is strictly constrained to the daytime conditions visible in the footage.

I am sharing this as additional documentation regarding the pedestrian accessibility of this rural reservoir route.