Wayspot title: a mural of leaves and cacti
Location (rat/ron): 35.836007, 128.528351
Wayspot title: Big Buri mural
Location (rat/ron): 35.835999, 128.528421
Wayspot title: Riding the ladder and picking the stars
Location (rat/ron): 35.835953, 128.528156
Wayspot title: Flower and Leaf mural
Location (rat/ron): 35.835628, 128.529030
City: Daegu Metropolitan City
Country: Republic of Korea
Deny email screenshot (not including privacy): No Deny email. Just completely deleted from Pokemon Go for no reason.
Additional information (if any): Regarding the nearby approved flower and leaf murals, I applied for a move because it was not created in the right place, but I got an e-mail saying that it was in the right place and that I removed the same items that did not meet the criteria. It is clear that the approved location is not the actual right location. It is nonsense that this one removed all the way spots around.
After approval, Wayspot, which was operating well until yesterday, disappeared.
The Wayspot is still in existence today.
I don’t know why it disappeared at all.
It still exists in campfires and IITCs.
(Maybe it hasn’t been long since I removed it…)
Please check and restore wayspot.
2 gyms pulled out and wayspot disappeared…
Please review it.
Before this case, there were a few times when wayspots approved for unknown reasons disappeared…
But you didn’t ask for restoration…
I applied for the Wayspot again and got it approved…
But this time, I was a little shocked by the sudden wayspot removal…
Even if it’s restored, there will only be a wayspot function…
Gyms in Pokemon Go won’t be restored…
Why did they remove the normal wayspots…?
It’s still a mystery…
I’m waiting for your answer day by day…
In the article, I was so embarrassed and embarrassed at the time of writing that I marked the changed Wayspot gym as Bondong Church. On the 14th cell, exercise equipment and reading in the fall were changed to you…
Please give me a quick recovery…
I hope you can also return the gym…
I’m sorry, but can you tell me why it was removed?
Is it not safe for rejection standards or is it the reason that it is a school even though it is a mural that is completely away from the entrance of the school?
There was nothing to make wayspot in that area, so I went around for hours, found it, applied for it, and approved it.
Of course, depending on the reviewer, approval or rejection will come out, but…
The one who was rejected is Wayspot, which was approved by an objection.
Nevertheless, I wonder what reason it is to remove all of them.
Korean judges say that most murals have been approved and appeared regardless of their location. Then shouldn’t all the murals that are approved be demolished as well? I think it’s an unfair demolition no matter how much I think about it.
The issue with external walls of schools has been discussed in this clarification:
The non-existence of acceptable POIs are not a reason to submit/accept something in lieu.
If what you say is true, this is a point of improvement for your local community. Each object is reviewed according to the details and context. While a mural may be meet the eligibility criteria, the location being not in the allowable locations should garner a rejection. This has been told in the first sentence of the rejection criteria page. You can request for removal for murals with the similar context.
The reviewing process is not perfect which is why there are incorrect approvals and rejections in the first place.
Simply put, if any one of the rejection criteria of wayspot is included, it cannot be approved, and even if it is approved, it means that it is a wrong approved wayspot.
Should I understand that if even one is included in the rejection criteria, all of them can be demolished?
It also includes exterior facing, fences in these locations and property boundaries…
It’s really… From the outside, the wall is big and high, so it’s pretty and there are a lot of various murals… No way…
If so, the murals of private houses in narrow alleys created as mural villages as tourist destinations will all be rejected as private land and should be eliminated.
We may not necessarily like the criteria however it is what has been established. We can only operate under these guidelines.
You may view the removal options from the ellipses options of an in-game wayspot when you request the removal. Currently, there are some wayspots that may not fit removal criteria despite not being eligible/acceptable in the first place.
Anything in and on single-family private residential properties specifically are called out in the rejection. The article mentions allowance for shared spaces in multifamily properties. Do you have an example in mind that you can share here?
I know how to remove it.
I’m wondering if there are some ways I might not fit the removal criteria even though I wasn’t eligible or allowed to in the first place.
And an example?
Are you trying to remove all the murals of tourist attractions that have been created as mural villages?
Last I checked, not meeting eligibility criteria is still not a removal option. While I can understand the logic why it isn’t there, still frustrating conundrum.
I’d like to confirm whether we’re on the same page of what is removable in regards to the often confusing “private property” reason. If it does warrant a removal then I’ll leave it to the community to forward the request. Unless if the problem is as massive as you suggested (which should warrant an educational email to change that larger voting sentiment).
And there is no need to remove the mural Wayspot in the mural village, which is a tourist destination.
It’s a wayspot created by many explorers to venture out, but it’s obviously wrong to delete it because there’s a mural on the wall of a private property, even though it’s a tourist destination.
If so, it’s like the meaning of a tourist destination called a mural village disappears.
Nonsense Wayspot shouldn’t be approved, but wasypot that I asked for restoration, private private property murals made of tourist attractions, etc… some flexibility seems necessary.
The same is true of murals on the walls outside the school.
Of course, there is no possibility that you can apply if you are blocked only by a fence.
However, I still don’t understand that it should be removed just because it’s an exterior facing the outside of the K-12 school, even though it’s not just an empty wall for local beautification and nice appearance, but a mural can be seen by anyone as they walk by.
Having wayspots removed when it is a valid removal does not take away the tourist spot’s meaning. It will just be blocked one avenue of appreciating it (aka Niantic’s database) because of the disconnect between reality and the guidelines. You can still go there whilst not spinning stops and I think that is a more genuine experience of taking in the meaning of any tourist site.
Some flexibility has been made if you read the article. One particularly interesting topic that comes up from time to time are castles with business areas in relation to SFPRP.
Another misconception, blockage by a fence is not a rejection reason if it is still accessible to some members of the public. As viewable in the tooltip under “Appropriate”. The rejection is for being on a K12 school property.
I’m guessing there are legal problems that led in this predicament. IMO the guidelines may become more strict the more nuisance behavior our community exhibits (or anyone who visits any POI for that matter). Which is why I’m for leaving out what is now unallowed, maximizing what is allowed as locations, and educating the community about gameplay restrictions & Wayfarer.
I keep saying the same thing…
Paulingzubat is saying the same thing.
I understand that it has been rejected as being in the school building with enough K12.
However, the issue is that even if it is a school wall, there may be fences or empty walls. Therefore, it is rejected because it is a school wall in K12, even though anyone passing by can see a real mural, rather than placing it as an empty wall for the sake of environmental beautification and a nice appearance. I fully understand this fact.
And likewise, it’s a rejection of approval due to private property.
As mentioned above, murals are painted on the wall of private property in a mural alley made up of tourist attractions. This should be included in the reason for rejection due to private property according to wayfarer’s standards.
In that case, you can never get approval for Wayspot at a tourist destination called Mural Village.
And I’ve never said that a tourist destination doesn’t play the role of a tourist destination just because it doesn’t have a wayspot.
I think there needs to be some flexibility in that it should be rejected just because it is included in the single reason for rejection. I think that’s why the wayspot is created and disappeared according to the judges’ judgment.
It’s the same thing, but of course, I don’t approve of the ridiculous wayspot and I don’t think it should be approved.
I’m just sad that many users have lost the element to enjoy playing in Ingrace, Pokémon Go, and Monster Hunter Now just because one thing is included in the reason for rejection, even though there can be some flexibility in these cases. And already wayspot has different characteristics from country to country.
I don’t think it’s any more meaningful to continue to talk about standards on a completely different point.
I don’t think I’m talking to Paulingzubat Ambassador, I think I’m talking to the system, which is wayfarer’s rejection criteria.
