Rejection reason: Via Emily — This submission was declined by Niantic’s automated process for not adhering to wayfarer criteria Location: New Zealand
Essentially, it’s the walking route up a hill to the designated meeting area in our local community. It doesn’t obstruct emergency services, I feel meets the exploration criteria as it’s important to the community and a must-know location for residents. Also feel it meets exercise criteria as it’s a walking route, not accessible via vehicle. Worthy of an appeal or nah?
Unless your turnaround time is extremely long, I wouldn’t appeal since that is a rejection based on the AI. I suspect it is because of too much sky in the secondary photo. Try taking new more concise photos and resubmitting.
This is considered more like infrastructure than something unique and distinct. Think of it similar to a stop sign or speed sign; if they are common, they are indistinct and ineligible.
Also, I doubt everyone would be walking to this area. Some could be driving in their cars.
You can’t drive on the reserve or to designated meeting area. There’s no vehicle access. To the general area, sure. But you’d be ways away from the point at which you need to be. I wouldn’t say it’s general infrastructure in the sense of traffic lights, as these are much less common and only in certain areas. But I take your point about it appreciate it!
I’d really not be convinced (just like the automated process) that an evacuation route sign is a great place to explore, exercise or socialize. Plus, if this is used in emergency situations such as tsunamis, you’d hit the “emergency services” rejection reason anyway.
“Go there to evacuate” isn’t exactly the same thing as “come hike or see the sights here”. If there is a hiking trail or a scenic lookout nearby, as you mention in your nomination, I would strongly suggest nominating these instead - both of them sound much more eligible.
I would not submit, accept, or appeal an evacuation route sign for all the reasons mentioned above.
We have noticed that the “automated process” tends to reject if there is too much nature in the photo for it to detect anything eligible. But this usually applies to green plant material. The photo you took is exactly what I would have recommended for a sign for a walking trail. I would not recommend trying this one with a new photo.
Hmm, didnt think of that. Great point! I’ll abandon this one and try the other two landmarks. Thanks for your experienced insight. I am pretty new at this so and am finding the rules are nuanced in a sense and somewhat varying depending on the community — so I am appreciative of the feedback to help understand things a bit more clearly!
Thank you for the feedback and great insight! so would you suggest abandoning this one or resubmitting it w/ more of a “informational sign on an established walking trail on reserve” type of thing? Also, is there other things that the automatic AI picks up on (as you mentioned too much greenery sometimes) in photos (and descriptions) that I should be aware of when submitting? Sorry to be picking your brain on this, it feels like there’s a bit to learn outside of “acceptance/rejection” criteria.
I would not resubmit this. I was trying to address an earlier comment about taking a new photo.
If the focus of the picture is clear, it is more likely to not be rejected by the “automated process,” a machine learning model that can reject nominations it does not find anything it has learned to be eligible. This usually acts at around 24 hours after submission if it is going to. That is why we recommend not using an upgrade until after that time, because the upgrade is wasted if it does.
Some things that seem to confuse the ML model are photos that appear to be random nature shots, random buildings, and too close close ups. The photo you shared here is beautifully composed, with the point of interest taking up most of the photo and centered with enough border to provide context. Your supporting photo could be better by taking a few steps back and including some more items that may be identifiable on Maps to help confirm location and pedestrian access. But you did include the sign in the supporting photo, and that is much better than a lot of new submitters do!
This sign should not be resubmitted or appealed. I think many of us have laid out many reasons why it doesn’t meet criteria, and the photo is not of issue. The issue is that this can be seen as a generic sign, part of infrastructure in the area. It could also be seen as possibly obstructing emergency services. It’s not actually a part of the nearby trail, which would make for a better submission. It isn’t a great place to be social at, exercise at, and/or explore, which all nominations must meet at least one of.
Even if this got passed ML and into community voting, the reasons above may be used to reject this by the community, and may be use by the appeals team to reject if appealed. Simply put, this sign does not meet criteria.
Ah, got it! Those are great tips! Especially re: supporting photos and waiting at least 24hrs before upgrading — had no idea. Thank you so much for the help on submission I’ll leave this one be and try the two other landmarks.
Ok, but why does is sound like when you are responding to me you are still looking to submit this sign, but to others, you are saying you’ll move on? There’s some inconstancies with your responses.
OP has indicated they’re willing to move on from the subject candidate. This sounds like positive change in their thought process regarding nominations. Should they decide to continue perusing it, that’s on them. We don’t need to pick at their story or challenge their narrative.
Let’s move on from this so we can have a positive atmosphere for future help.
appreciate it!