Hello Wayfarer community,
a few months ago I submitted a new stop and after a three month lasting voting-phase (which is crazy to me itself already) I gave it an upgrade. A few hours later it got rejected by the Wayfarer community, because according to the the voting it didn’t exist at the location.
Sidenote: I specificly pointed out in the stops discription that the venue is new and therefore might not be visible in the aerial map yet. But it can already be found on Google Maps etc. on the right loacation with reviews and photos as well. What more can you do, right!?
So I raised an objection and after the vote by Ninantic, it was rejected for the reason of being a duplicate. Which is actually the exact opposite, but very wrong as well. The spot is free and unused in the ITC-Map and the venue has no other stops at all. So what is happening here?
This whole process is so damn energy draining – and I wish this was an isolated incident. Unfortunately, it seems like these lengthy processes and questionable decisions are currently rather the ususal, than the exception.
Once you’re not submitting another unapealing traffic sign oder 1.000.000th direction arrow of a hiking route to nowwhere (they seem to go through without any problems at all), you’re most recently getting declined for questionalble reasons and need to fight and debate for almost every single stop. I have no idea, what to do anymore. The frustration level these days is close to max. =(
Going off the google maps pin for the Calisthenics Park I’m guessing that a playground used to reside there in the past. I say this because there is an existing wayspot for a kids playground at that location.
from what I can tell the pin is pretty close. no obvious duplicates on the lightship map and I couldn’t see your photo added to anything nearby. it’s not very difficult to find the building in the background of your photo from street view so I really don’t know why community reviewers rejected it that way.
The old childrens slide / playground stop is in the cell next to it. 80 % of the Calisthenics Park is in the other cell and that is where it took the photo and where it marked the park. That one is a unused cell and I can see no reason why it should be blocked.
And even if the stop would be in the same cell as the playground stop, should it appear on the ITC map anyway, right? It usually just doesn’t appear in Pokemon Go then, cause the cell is used already. But it should still become an ITC entry or am I totally wrong?
Well, the park is a seprate sports venue and has nothing to do with the kids slide. And I didn’t nominate the crosstrainer on the photo. I nominated the whole park with the a photo of crosstrainer with rag ins the background.
But thanks for a possible explication, what could have been the issue from a third perspective.
Guess I’m just getting a little tiered and frustrated of putting time and energy into creating new stops, when it doesn’t leed into anything substantial in the end.
IITC does not show every wayspot, only those that appear in Ingress as portals since it is just a re-skin of the Ingress Intel Map.
I assume the Niantic reviewer considered your nomination a duplicate of the existing playground since @tehstone didn’t see an existing wayspot for it on the Lightship map.
The reason is likely as @cyndiepooh alluded to, since the Calisthenics Park is new and the way it is marked on Google Maps could possibly lead them to the conclusion that either:
It is part of the same overall play area, or
The playground has been permanenty removed and replaced with the Calisthenics Park
If the playground is still there a good idea is for your supporting photo is to show both it and the Calisthenics Park, along with the separation between them, to better demonstrate that it is two distinct areas.
This could also help with the community reviewers who couldn’t verify that your nomination exists at the location by giving them another reference point get their bearings.
