Trail marker rejected by Niantic reviewer

Ever since trail markers had been deemed eligible under the Explore criteria I started submitting them. Every now and again, some trail markers are rejected via community voting or the ML filter, so I appeal them which has resulted in them being added to the database via Niantic review. However, for the first time, a trail marker got rejected by a Niantic employee for being a “regular sign board.” I believe this to be a mistake but there is no way to appeal the decision again. Should I just resubmit it or is there another preferred way to go about this?

Rejection note:

This is an image of the Wayspot in question:

The sign/image you have posted contains a tag, and this is always a reason for rejection.

I don’t think it’s the tag. I think it’s very generic and not what most explorers think of when you say trail marker. To me this is a sign the county/state/city government would put up on a light pole on a sidewalk. Versus a marker indicating you were on a trail.

I think there is a conflict over trail markers in the guidance, or at least the interpretation of the guidance.

The question is, is the POI (point of interest) the marker itself, or is it the trail? Named trails are considered highly eligible, but often the reviewing process concentrates on the marker itself. I think this confusion/conflict also happens in the appeal process.

Perhaps you should resubmit it, with a close-up of the trail marker on the sign and not the whole sign. Also, photos taken at night - even if well-lit like this one - are less likely to be approved IMO.

1 Like

It seems similar to something I had trouble with, yours at least has a name of a trail under it that should have been taken into account maybe? I would argue that Route 1 is the name of the trail on mine but that’s neither here nor there.

1 Like

As far as I know, a mere tag does not make a submission ineligible. However, if said tag is the submission itself, it is not eligible.
Would you mind linking the criteria/ AMA for your claim?

1 Like

This is how trail markers look in Germany. They are eligible und the Explore criterion which had been clarified again and again. And “most explorers” in Germany will tell you the same. There are tens of thousands of these trail markers in the database and new ones are added by the dozen every day.

Really ever? :flushed:

1 Like

On the sign you obviously see the historic trail map

I can only speak from a German perspective. This is how our trail markers look and I haven’t had any real issues with getting them accepted, also via Niantic review. So I’m just curious how to go on about this. Especially how to leave feedback for Niantic so they may improve their internal processes.

1 Like

€1,000,000 question…

1 Like

Ganz ehrlich, egal welche Kriterien . Ich habe neulich einen ,nein mehrere Versuch gestartet neue Pokemon stops vor zu schlagen.
Keines von denen war auf privatem Gelände. Einer davon war oder wäre sogar einzigartig denn es handelt sich um echte Handwerkskunst mit Farbe auf ein Gebäude bzw Transformator Haus. Selbst von der Straße oder Fußweg zu erreichen und kein gesperrtes Gelände. Die Bilder in 4k mit Beschreibung wurden abgelehnt.
Spots die auf privatem Gelände sind habe ich gemeldet und sogar welche die nicht mehr da sind da selbst diese Gelände nun privat sind. Selbst die wurden abgelehnt?
Ich bin ja auch ein Spieler der helfen möchte das Spiel mit seinem Spots zu aktualisieren und es der richtigen Weise an zu zeigen.
Ich melde keine Spots aus lange Weile oder um in einer Weise etwas davon zu haben sondern ist mein Gedanke ein Spiel zu spielen welches richtige Inhalte und Angaben zu erhalten . Alein in meiner Stadt sind Arenen und Stop nicht mehr richtig oder gar nicht mehr da. Unsere Stadt hatte ein Event wie zb. landesgartenschow welches nur für 5 Monate ging und dafür Beispiele für Garten Bauten zu zeigen . Da würden stops genehmigt die Jetzt nach Ende des Events nicht mehr existieren. Die melde ich nun als falsch und unrecht,werden aber immer ab.
Ich bin nun der Meinung wayspot nicht mehr zu melden oder vor zu schlagen da sowieso alles ab gelehnt wird. Wayfarer untersucht nicht richtig die Angaben sondern lässt andere Menschen nur entscheiden ob ja oder nein . So ist mein Eindruck. Es ist doch so! Wenn ich einen Stop melde und sogar mit GPS Daten übermittelt worden ist dann kann ,ich zumindest" über Google Maps in Echtzeit sehen wo und wenn genau sehen ob es privat Gelände ist oder diese Punkte überhaupt da sind. Zum ersten Mal bin ich von einer Community enttäuscht da sie unrealistisch und eigenmächtig Handeln. Ein unterstützen meinerseits wird also in Zukunft nicht mehr kommen und ich habe genug Mitspieler die ich nun abraten werde wayfarer zu helfen oder zu unterstützen.

According to the FAQ, a tag on an image is a rejection criterion:

Ineligible photo
Photo includes one or more of emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses; copyrighted material or watermarks, including screenshots of someone else’s photo; is obviously doctored; includes people, body parts, or live animals as the subject matter; is blurry, over/under exposed, taken inside a car, contains a watermark, or is improperly oriented.

I have route 5 here. My goodness is it hard to get them accepted. I can submit 3 on the same day, all the same kind of submission, same kind of text (of course the names differ) and get 2 rejected, one accepted, then I can appeal the rejections and one gets accepted and one gets rejected…

(In reality the acceptance rate is lower than that after 2 tries…)

Funnily enough the AI seems to like the square metal signs. The stickers though? Yikes, everyone hates those. Even though its the same route!!!

The square metal sign was an AI accept.
The Stoke Row sticker was a successful appeal after being rejected for… I think unsafe access and temporary?
The other sticker was a rejection with a rejected appeal.
So there is no consistency at all with the AI, the community, or niantic’s appeals team.

I’m just waiting for my educational ban email…

1 Like

That does not mean graffiti tags on the actual object, but tags added to the photo.


Luck of the draw :person_shrugging:


Highly frustrating for something that is in the criteria as an example of a great nomination for exercise

Like I say, looking forward to that ban warning so I can stop wayfarering

1 Like

I’m happy to add my positive vote when reviewing trailmarkers.
I would struggle to answer the questions asked in a negative way.
Providing it is in an acceptable place, correctly described and located, a good picture, an official trail, at a distinct point on the trail made of robust material.
Appropriate :white_check_mark:
Safe for pedestrians :white_check_mark:
Accurate :white_check_mark:
Permanent &Distinct
Exercise :white_check_mark:
Explore :white_check_mark:
Social - this is usually a :negative_squared_cross_mark: from me but I also think there are arguments for a more positive response.

As with any nomination if you do a poor picture with virtually no text then it risks a lower vote.


That’s good to know. I haven’t reviewed a lot of German nominations.

1 Like