Third-party content incorrectly assumed. what to do

When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:

  • Wayspot Title: Kinder Fahrrad-Verkehrsübungsplatz
  • Location (lat/lon): 49.225492, 9.687644
  • City: Kupferzell
  • Country: Germany
  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):

  • Additional Information (if any):
    here is one of my best wayspots to fight for. It is a bicycle traffic area for children where they can practice riding a bicycle. It is safe and easily accessible and is maintained by the community.
    My appeal was rejected on the grounds that the image was used from an external third party. I have now added more pictures and even a panorama shot to refute this.

Anyone that can help? :slight_smile:


You can only appeal Wayspot submission via Contribution Management. If the appeal has been rejected, you will have to resubmit the nomination. This forum is only for rejected Wayspot removal request appeals, or to appeal valid Wayspots that have been removed for the wrong reasons and have them restored.

Sorry for any inconveniences.

The last comment is correct, but Niantic has also said that they want to know when the appeals team got it wrong. idk how to prove that this is not a third party photo, which is the rejection reason given. I have also known @NianticAaron to be able to clarify if the rejection reason the appeals team sent does not match why it was actually rejected. I hope someone from the team will look at this and let you know what third party source they thought you used, or why it was actually rejected if that is not really the reason.

Really, this should be moved to Nomination Support. For one, this just looks like a plain path, nothing special about it. If there was a sign that noted it was for practicing riding bikes on, that would be better for the main photo, and it would better help place mark the POI.

While there is no Street View for the track, it does appear to be a part of Bahnpark Kupferzell, which Google Maps has as the playground name. You may want to consider using the official park name in the title. I found the official website for the park as well, which would be good to include with supporting info:

Also, @Linus02052018, from the original rejection reason, it would seem that ML rejected it, and the rejection email said “our team.” Thus, the community never saw it, and it could have been the ML that thought it was a third party image, and that’s what the appeals team went on. ML is very vague with rejection reasons, just usually saying it doesn’t meet criteria. This could be why so many are upset with the appeals team rejecting submissions as of late, as they are going off of the ML rejections and not doing further research.

1 Like

I am moving this to nomination support and closing the duplicate that is there.

Zero pedestrians access

Sorry, but are you crazy? The whole place is for pedestrians only. This is not a real traffic area where cars can drive.

Please read the post and think before you write something with this little knowledge and effort.

I don’t speak German and all 8 see is a road with no footpath

To be fair, it does look like a road in the picture. Looks like a big crossroads. It’s only when you read the text that you see its intended for bikes. For most of the world I’m going to bet that this looks really odd, and you might wonder if its true or if someone just nomiated a piece of road if you saw it come up for review.
In the UK, we don’t have a lot of good cycling infrastructure and most motorists believe bikes are a pest that shouldn’t be on the road


shouldnt people look at all the informations before they make a decission? If they just look at the picture and they dont read the text you could maybe argue that its not a good spot. But with like the informations and the google maps view its clear what it is… :confused:

1 Like

The first thing we see is the image and think your just some confused person.

Try adding people on bikes to the second image

But I also don’t see where it fits… If there’s a direction sing try that

Well, I did read it, but there are 2 issues…

  1. Many reviewers dont read, they insta-judge and move on
  2. Many reviewers who do read also assume that submitters lie

And the 3rd bonus issue is that for many countries, cycling infrastructure like this is an inconceivable luxury that we’d never even consider could exist.

ML and Niantic appeals team are both trained on global data, so maybe you can see the issues that might come up? It may be that this would be easily approved if you could get it to the local reviewers, but harder when it goes to these global resources. So it might need “selling” better, or pictures that demonstrate it being used (opening up more rejection options, yay)

This is a good instance to remind us all that we should take time to look at pictures, read the text and not jump to conclusions.
The picture alone makes you wonder what is this about. So if you can’t read the text then do ask.
That keeps the conversation positive and gives the person a chance to explain further rather than have to defend.
Its an easy trap to fall into when this is a global forum with posts in different languages.


Hi @Linus02052018
Ich habe leider ein Problem mit deinem Wayspot Vorschlag.
Alles was ich im Netz darüber finden kann, läuft auf das eine hinaus. Nämlich dass es sich hierbei um einen Übungsplatz zur Verkehrerziehung von Kindern der 4./5. Klasse (K-12) handelt.
Das kommt dann einer Schule gleich. Über diese werden die Kinder doch auch angemeldet, um an den Kursen teilzunehmen, oder?

1 Like

Der Platz hat mir der Schule nichts zutun - es ist wie ein Spielplatz. Nur anstelle von Schaukel und Rutsche kann man hier mit seinem Fahrrad oder seinem Roller die Strecke entlang fahren.

ich gebs auf :slight_smile:

Don’t give up - all the comments just show why it could have been rejected

That helps for the next time you try the submission