When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
Wayspot Title: Emerald Twenty Four
Location (lat/lon):38.09372, -84.52617
City:Lexington Ky
Country:US
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any): It was a dynamax power spot and it was spitefully reported but doesn’t qualify for any of the reporting conditions. It was in a location where people socialize as well as exercise and walk pets.
The majority of Power Spots are nothing to do with Wayfarer. Most of them come from a third party database and are not actually a part of the Wayfarer database. Some of them are wayspots that are ineligible to appear in Pokémon Go as Pokéstops or Gyms due to proximity rules, but that is a minority of them, and as I’ll get to below, I don’t think this is one of those cases.
Power Spots only stick around for a day or two before they despawn, whilst others pop up each day. They tend to spawn and despawn at 5am local time. So it’s likely that what you witnessed was actually the natural despawning of the Power Spot, rather than it being reported and removed.
Looking at the database, I can see a wayspot does exist by that name in this location, but it appears as if it should be a Pokéstop or Gym in Pokémon Go as it’s the only wayspot in that Level 17 S2 Cell. Can you confirm that you do see it as a Pokéstop/Gym in game and that the Power Spot was actually a different location with an identical name?
Also, for what it’s worth, the actual wayspot is an apartment complex sign that normally wouldn’t meet the eligibility criteria in the first place.
Thank you for the quick and concise response hank. I can confirm that a wayspot exists with the same name but not in the location that the power spot was in.
Wayfarer is random and pointless. Every few months I get a wild hair and decide to try it again, only to have Niantic employees mess up on their own criteria. Today they decided a basketball goal in a church parking lot didn’t meet criteria because it’s not very pretty. I guess since the church can’t afford a new one, the kids who play there should be punished. Absolutely ridiculous. They said it looks like it’s not in use. Well, I’d post pictures of the neighborhood kids who use it, but that seems creepy. What a waste of time and effort.
Hi, welcome. Sorry to hear you are experiencing rejections. Just to let you know, if the e-mail said “our team has decided…” and the rejection happened within 24 hours of uploading, then it’s an automated one by the machine learning system, so I would not over-interpret who thought what about the financial capabilities of the church in this case.
Even if it is not the case, the community would be happy to help improve your nominations, if they are eligible. Once you understand the set of eligibility rules, it is very much possible for most of your nominations to go through easily, as is the case of many people on this forum. However I would ask that you start your own topic for this. I understand the frustration but let’s not derail other people’s threads
It’s a basketball goal in a church parking lot that Niantic rejected my appeal because they somehow think they know it’s not in use. But it is on use, it’s just a poor area do it doesn’t look as pretty as others do. I’m not new to this and I don’t need help with my nomination. I need Niantic to start getting things right. My last appeal was for a permanent art piece in a major international airport wad also rejected because again, Niantic employees made wrong assumptions about it being temporary. Well they can look at KCI and see it’s still there two years later.
The burden of proof lies on the nominator. When submitting you need too include as much details as possible, including addressing any concerns reviewers may have.
