I would like to share the final result of my appeal and the additional verification I performed afterward.
First, I am attaching:
- A screenshot of the rejection email
- 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】
-
Walking route video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_35mVnfxW8U -
GPS-synced route video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODdn8yNWy9E&t=253s
【Items to verify】
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.