That general rule applies to standard location edits, but this case is different.
The original photo and title belong to a real structure at a different coordinate where a Gym already exists. Placing those details at this incorrect coordinate was a clear attempt to bypass S2 cell density rules.
Moving it to its true location would simply make it a duplicate of the existing Gym. Therefore, a complete removal is the correct course of action under Niantic’s abuse guidelines.
Which wayspot is the gym that you say this is a duplicate of? The closest gym to this one is a playground.
Again, I don’t believe this is correct. Yes, if the wayspot is moved to the location of the two pavilions, it won’t appear in the game, that is correct, but I strongly disagree with the accusation of abuse.
Timeline:
Moving the two pavilion wayspot to the location where we can see two pavilions, it would indeed disappear as it is blocked by:
한림풀에버아파트 710동 놀이터 nominated on October 2, 2019
The nomination of the single pavilion was a valid submission, as it is actually at that position, it could have been accepted as a seperate wayspot, but as said, most likely it was considered a duplicate, causing the community to decide the proper location.
This also happens with playgrounds, in playgrounds you often see duplicate submissions, with multiple pictures, when selecting the best location, this may result in a different location than the actual playground equipment in the main picture.
In this case, the location is accurate for the featured picture.
The fact that both were submitted in 2019 it may have been entered by someone else and rejected as a duplicate then. If the photo was the one of the twin pavilions then it may have been pulled to the single pavilion.
Was there a title edit after they were accepted? If the twin pavilions photo became the disc photo, someone may have edited it to reflect the photo.
Both look to be there though as they are both showing on the map above.
I would like to address the points raised above regarding this Wayspot:
Mismatched Environment: The photo clearly shows a structure with a black metal fence, dense landscaping, and an apartment wall directly behind it. In contrast, the current satellite coordinates show an open plaza/walkway between V-shaped buildings. The physical background does not match this location at all.
Non-Existence at Current Coordinates: Regardless of past submission history or photo edits, there are no twin pavilions located at these specific coordinates. A Wayspot must reflect an actual object present at its exact real-world location.
Invalid Location / Abuse: Keeping a Wayspot at coordinates where the featured object does not exist violates Wayfarer criteria. If the photo was improperly applied or placed here to bypass S2 cell density rules, it must be relocated to its true real-world position or removed
This is completely absurd. Looking at all three photos attached to this single Wayspot, they clearly depict three entirely different structures in completely different locations:
Photo 1: A single platform pavilion on brick pavers with a black metal fence directly behind it.
Photo 2: Twin platform pavilions facing a street with parked cars and an apartment building across the road.
Photo 3: A completely different metal/wooden pergola structure situated on a rubber playground surface with benches.
How are they in a single spot?
A single Wayspot cannot simultaneously be a single pavilion by a fence, twin pavilions by a street, and a playground pergola. This proves beyond a doubt that photos of different objects were mixed up or intentionally submitted to abuse the system. This invalid Wayspot must be removed or corrected immediately
I appreciate you are approaching this from a particular standpoint however there is no urgency here.
It is much better that the team takes time to fully assess the situation, in order to reach a conclusion. I’m sure all wayfinders want decisions to weigh up all evidence and not feel rushed into decisions.
It is not uncommon for a wayspot to have a range of photos attached - mainly due to duplicates being marked. The team will be able to assess this.
Please be patient and await an outcome from the team.
While I agree with you that photos should not be pulled from duplicates that seems to be unfortunately what has happened.
It has happened me in the past also where a submission was rejected as a duplicate ( although it wasn’t) and the photo was pulled to the wayspot that it was meant to be a duplicate of.
They were different things but related that’s the only logic I could take from it.
This is why I wouldn’t automatically assume abuse.
I see your point regarding duplicate merges, but in this case, all three distinct photos were actually submitted by the exact same user Since a single submitter uploaded photos from completely different locations to this same Wayspot, it seems more like a deliberate submission rather than an automated system glitch.
Possibly, but they may have legitimately submitted 3 wayspots and 1 was accepted but the other 2 got marked duplicates because the 1st one got through before the others, those photos went to the only accepted spot which would account for all 3 photos in one place. (This is an unfortunate result of bad reviewing at times unfortunately.)
If the POI’s in the photos didn’t exist in the area at all then I would for sure say it was abuse, but on this one I wouldn’t jump straight to there without knowing all the facts.
Not saying you are wrong but it may not be as it seems at first, or exactly as it seemed depending on the circumstances.
Best to leave it and let the staff look into the sequence of events.
The reason I only use abuse when obvious is I wouldn’t like to be dinged for entering a legitimate wayspot that ended up in the same situation even though it was entered in good faith and not with any intention of manipulation of the gameboard.
When scanning was a thing in PoGo, I used to immediately scan any new wayspot that I had accepted to prove it’s existence. Now I have Scaniverse in case anyone ever thinks about malicious reporting.
