Wayspot removal request (Ookutehashi)

This Weyspot photo shows an iron plate with the name of the bridge, “Okutebashi,” written on it, but as you can see, it has corroded and even the letters are hard to read. It just looks like some kind of industrial waste tied to a rusty guardrail.

Title of the Wayspot: [Okutegabashi] Japanese translation「おおくてばし」
Location: [Latitude 35.17649/Longitude 137.04938]
City: [NAGAKUTE city]

Screenshot of the Rejection Email: [Attach Screenshot]

Additional information: [If you have more explanations, add them here]

“Reason for removal request”
1,The plate (with the name of the bridge printed on it) is a photo of Weyspot, but it is severely damaged (to the point where the letters are unreadable) and looks like an industrial waste display. It is not that the photo is of low quality, but that the subject itself is of low quality and makes the viewer feel “uncomfortable”.

2, The bridge itself, including the plate, has no distinctive features. There is no architectural technique, design, or historical background. It is just an ordinary small bridge on a prefectural road, and there are many bridges like this all over the world. Does it really qualify as a Weyspot?

3,Let’s assume that this is the “trail marker” that is “in the news” right now. How many Wayfarers are actually supporting such a low-quality plate as a “good trail marker” and a Wayspot?

I can’t read what’s written.

Google Maps

Google Street

I’m not saying that a structure called a “bridge” doesn’t qualify as a Weyspot.

Most of the bridges registered as Weyspots are masterpieces of architectural skill, have historical value, or are decorated with artistic designs.
The same goes for the parapets and plates, of course.
They are truly magnificent Weyspots, and are worth exploring.

However, recently Weyfarers (applicants and judges alike) seem to be mistakenly under the impression that any “structure” with the name “bridge” qualifies as a Weyspot.
The recommenders nominate a large number of featureless bridges in towns and cities, assuming that they will definitely become Weyspots, and the judges also seem to think that any “bridge” can be approved.

Furthermore, Niantic may refuse to remove a Weispot that has already been approved, even if it does not actually meet the “eligibility and approval criteria,” because it “does not meet the removal criteria.”

Then, the low-quality Weyspots that were not deleted are used as “textbooks” and “models,” and a large number of new low-quality Weyspot candidates are applied for. A large number of applications awaiting review are piled up again. Another campaign must be carried out. Isn’t this a vicious cycle?

In Japan, there are many examples of “bulletin boards” and “manholes” being lower quality Wespots than this “bridge,” and these are bad examples (models).
Niantic should take a closer look at these examples.
thank you.

1 Like

First of all, the theory that the plates are ineligible because they are dirty and therefore offensive to the viewer is laughable and unintelligent.

The fact that the bridge has existed for so long with such an old plaque in place is in itself evidence of its geographical value and long history. This is strictly stipulated and guaranteed by Japanese road laws.

There are many such bridges in Japan, which means that there are many interesting bridges close at hand that are suitable for exploration.

A “bridge” without even a plate is treated by law as a mere road and is nothing more than a structure. The low-quality structures you refer to only apply to such bridges without plates.

1 Like

Stapcell, thank you for your opinion.
However, I think I may have misled you due to my poor English explanation.

1,First of all, as stated in the “explanation” of this Weyspot, this bridge was built in March 1979. (In Japanese, it is called “SHOWA54NEN 3GATU”). It was built only 54 years ago, which is quite recent considering the long history of Japan.
2,Also, judging from the badly rusted guardrails, this bridge has not been properly maintained for the last 50 years or so.
This is not an old plaque (bridge) with historical value, but rather a dilapidated plate that has become what it is today due to the delayed response of the local government that manages the bridge.

Also, as I said before, I’m not saying that a bridge can’t be a Wayspot - as you say, there are plenty of interesting bridges close by in Japan that are worthy of exploration.
By the way, the two places below are Weyspots on other bridges in the vicinity of the Weyspot in question. What do you think? Aren’t you interested?

However, the Weyspot in question was created with too easy an interpretation.
I have absolutely no idea why this applicant recommended it as a Weyspot.

I suspect that someone who wanted to create a Pokestop probably applied for this bridge, which existed in an available position in S2 Cell, because “it’s a bridge.”
We must avoid creating Wespots with the mindset that “it’s OK because it’s a bridge.” In particular, photos of Wespots like this one, where the subject is corroded (damaged), should not have been approved in the first place. I thought that examples of “low-quality Wespot creation” should not remain in this place, and that’s why I requested their removal.
thank you

The years of bridge history should not be compared to the length of Japanese history. It is also nonsense to judge the state of management of a municipality only by how dirty the plates are. This is because maintenance related to safety aspects, such as the durability of the bridge, takes precedence over the appearance of the bridge.

When a bridge is equipped with a plaque guaranteeing its historical and geographical importance, as strictly required by Japanese road laws, it has a value that is comparable to other already registered bridges in the area. If players look at this spot and search for various other bridges for nomination, that is consistent with the significance of the wayfarer. If that submitted bridge contains just a structure on the road with no plates or anything, it will just be rejected for review, and there is nothing wrong with that.


Thanks for the appeal, @miracleyanng We took another look at the Wayspot in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.


Stapcell Thank you for your reply.

I feel really disappointed when I go exploring and find a dirty, awful Weyspot like this. I also feel the same way when I receive a similar gift card from a friend in a POGO gift exchange.
In other words, for me, who only plays POGO, a “Weyspot” is a place that has the characteristics of the area and makes me want to explore it.

There is a crucial difference between your way of thinking and mine.

Bridge plates don’t always indicate the importance of the bridge.
In this case, it’s just a “nameplate.” It just has the name of the bridge written on it (although it’s no longer visible).

In addition, the reason why the name exists is not because of historical or geographical value, but because in most cases, including this case, it is for administrative reasons, and was not named by local residents. Therefore, I think the value of the Weyspot is very low.

I don’t think players will be interested in other bridges (Weyspots) after seeing this ugly nametag, and will likely be disappointed with the area and go home.

Your opinion is correct in terms of the way we think about bridges and the rights we have as a Weyspot. I understand that (also in terms of Japan’s Road Traffic Act, etc.). I also believe that we have rights regarding the bridge in question.

I noticed while translating this sentence into English. As expected, the Japanese phrase “whether the object (bridge and plate) is “FUSAWA-SHII” as a Weyspot” was not translated well into English. This seems to be the cause of the difference in opinion between you and me.
(FUSAWA-SHII was included in Niantic’s Weyspot application criteria.)

(Whether the meaning is conveyed well)
I am of the opinion that “bridges qualify as Weyspots.” However, I am not of the opinion that all bridges should be recognized as Weyspots just because they “qualify.”

The Japanese word “FUSAWA-SHII” does not only mean “to have rights” or “to be qualified.” In addition,
“Its existence is very unique.”
“I think everyone wants to go see it.”
“It serves the people of that country.”
etc. (there are others)
It is believed to contain the meaning of “something extra.”

I have determined that in this case, the “plus alpha” requirement is not met.

I want all Weyfarers to think about whether or not they are satisfied with this “object” (not a bridge) and more.
That’s all.

Now, while I was saying that, it seems that a ruling came from NianticAtlas.
Unfortunately, and against my wishes, this Weyspot has been officially approved and will be staying here.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Well then.

Thanks for the ruling.

Now, I will bring this information back to my community and ask my members to share it with me, as the existence of this “low-quality Weyspot” has been officially acknowledged.
And I will tell my members to immediately submit any Weyspot applications for the “bridge” that I had asked them to stop submitting.
Would it be better to have them copy and paste the URL of this forum when submitting their application?
Ironically, my request for removal will likely spur more Weyspot requests and approvals on the Bridge in the future.
It seems I was unable to stop this trend. Thank you.

Hello! I understand your disappointment. I reviewed in the past thousands of wayspots in Japan, even before the two Challenges. From my understanding most of these bridges plaques don’t meet any criteria as they are mass-produced and there is always one or two in each bridge. That’s what I saw and that’s what I’ve been told by some Japanese explorers. Anyway I will ask again to some Japanese explorers that I know I can trust for their opinión. Please, if you consider they are not valid don’t encourage to other explorers to submit them if we want to keep the map clean from “coal”. There are always wayspots that get approved incorrectly and they don’t meet removal criteria (sadly).


In Japan, bridge nameplates are only placed on bridges that are deemed particularly important by the local government, which has a deep understanding of the history of the area. Therefore, bridges with plates are qualified at that time without exception.

In the first place, it is enough for a PokéStop to replenish items or function as a gym, and all the concerns you are expressing are ugly and selfish.

There are few bigoted players who would be discouraged from checking out PokéStops on other bridges just by looking at a picture of a spot, and if there are, don’t worry about them.

Players are free to select and discard the photo cards they choose as gifts, and they are also free to select the recipients of the exchange and insulate them if they do not like them.

We should not limit the variety of spots for eccentric players like yourself, and we should keep adding more and more spots for this type of bridge so that you can choose from a variety of spots according to your preferences.

1 Like

MegaTrainerRed Ambassador

Sorry for the late response. Thank you for your comment.
I have communicated Niantic’s decision to members of the community. That was my promise to them.

They are of the opinion that these low-quality Weyspots “should be removed” and “are unacceptable,” but at the same time, they are people who are eager to see new Weyspots (Pokestops) (Gyms) installed.
I do not have the authority (power) to force each member to retract their opinion. Therefore, I only asked for a certain degree of understanding regarding the application for Weyspot this time.

MegaTrainerRed Ambassador
I am very happy that there are people like you who live overseas and have common sense about the low-quality Weyspots in Japan.
I have also read many of your comments on this forum.

On the other hand, as another commenter said, I feel very embarrassed as a fellow Japanese that there are Japanese people who make disparaging remarks about Weyspots as mere “items” as Pokestops and gyms. I think their sole purpose is to mass-produce Weyspots (Pokestops) and create many gyms, so that they can obtain items through battles and gym occupation.

I don’t deny the diversity of ways players enjoy games. That is one way to enjoy games.
However, he made a statement that fundamentally denies the way games are provided (sold) by Niantic. And he called players like us who explore and adventure “weird players,” a derogatory term.


Please close this thread.
I don’t want people like him to be involved in this thread any more.
I’ll probably create a general discussion thread about this topic at some point.

Thank you.