I’m having an issue where a title edit I made was rejected and then even the appeal was rejected and I cannot figure out why. I have recently visited a public nature trail in Jääskelä, Jyväskylä. The trail is managed by the City of Jyväskylä. The trail consists of 17 trail markers, which can be seen on the official trail map here. All 17 of these trail markers are Wayspots and most of them were submitted 11 years ago according to the Wayspot photos. However, the City replaced all of the old trail markers with new ones in 2021. The new trail markers are approximately the same location (at max, they are a few meters off from the original spot but as the nature trail is in the middle of the forest, it would be hard to pinpoint their spot on the map nevertheless for location edits). I went through each and every trail markers and uploaded new photos and edited titles to reflect the current trail markers. All of the new photos have been accepted, but I’m having issues with some title edits, especially this one that was rejected.. This Wayspot is the 8th marker on the Trail.
Old photo (Sinkoilevat Siemenet)
New photo of Wayspot (Öiset kulkijat)
Current Wayspot Title: Sinkoilevat Siemenet [translation: Flinging Seeds)
Your Edit: Öiset kulkijat [translation: Night-time wanderers]
The new photo was accepted, but the title edit was rejected.
Earlier, I basically submitted the same appeal text for the 9th marker on the trail (Kyy → Yöperhoset) and that edit got accepted. Some other trail markers on this same trail have been instantly accepted, so I’m having a hard time understanding Niantic’s response here. All of the new photos have been accepted too, so it’s just these remaining not-ML accepted title edits I’m having a hard time with… With that being said, the old trail markers do not exist - they haven’t been on that trail since 2021. Some trail markers stayed the same (for example marker 7 “Majurin kanavahanke” was just updated with the new graphics and a new map, but still basically has the same text) but a vast majority of them were completely revamped in 2021. I’m not sure if there’s an issue with this one in particular because it’s a Gym in Pokemon Go? With that being said, I do not agree with my contribution not being related to the object the Wayspot represents (I mean, it represents the 8th trail marker info board on the Jääskelä nature trail and the old one, “Sinkoilevat siemenet” does not exist anymore as it has been replaced with a new, 8th trail marker info board “Öiset kulkijat” and even the new photo has been accepted??) so I’m really stumped here.. and how does one even appeal a rejected title edit appeal?
Hi, welcome to the forum! 
Just to quickly address a couple of assumptions made: Pokémon GO gym status does not influence the outcome of your appeals.
And then, it looks like you are hoping to get other rejections addressed through one appeal? Unfortunately it seems unlikely to me that the appeal reviewer would do that. It would take multiple appeals, even if it’s appeals of a similar type.
Thank you! I had two title rejections from the trail, number 9 and 8 and basically used the same appeal explanation message for both appeals - number 9 was accepted, but number 8 (Sinkoilevat Siemenet → Öiset kulkijat) was not even though the appeal message itself has only been edited to reference the wayspot in question. I do understand that they cannot address multiple edits via one appeal (was worth a shot though!) but since this matter affects several Wayspots in the same area, I have included them in the appeal as supporting evidence of a kind.
There are still 7 title edits from the trail in either voting or the queue. This one has been rejected and 3 have been accepted without any issue. I was accepted after an appeal with an almost identical appeal message.
Generally speaking, it happens that text edits for a renamed object get rejected because we don’t get to provide context/supporting information.
However, what I do have a bit of a concern about here is that this doesn’t seem to be a situation where the trail was renamed and where all the markers were updated to match the new style and are generally the same thing in the same location.
These are not really trail markers but rather information signs, and what I understand from your text is that it is an info board about something (a plant?) that got replaced with an info board about a different subject, and so did the others that are part of this series. It is therefore more than “just a renaming”, and it looks like the appeal reviewer expected you to report the removed signs for removal (considering you already have the photo evidence) and resubmit the new ones. This is why they called it “repurposing”. This is done so that the new objects can be evaluated on their own merits. You could imagine situations where the new info signs are not in the exact same places, or situations where signs are replaced with something else entirely that is ineligible, so this is why this policy exists. I would suggest trying this path instead.
Unrelated to this, I would also suggest being a little more to the point in your future appeals - consider that you have better odds if the appeal reviewer can quickly find the key information. “The object was renamed, here’s a link for proof, please use Google Translate as it is in Finnish”. I understand the “worth a shot” part but as said above information about submission dates, how painstaking it was and about other wayspots is not relevant to this specific appeal and makes it hard to get to the actual proof.
2 Likes
