I’m not sure if this is the right category, but I had submitted an appeal for this wayspot and got a bizarre rejection response. Is there some criteria I’m not up to date on, but what is an “animal passing area”? Aren’t most outdoor areas technically an animal passing area? lol
I’ve never received this sort of rejection response before and I just want to know what it means. I read the rejection criteria and am I missing something?
Not looking for advice on re-submitting this one or the eligibility of it, though I do disagree with the decision. I probably won’t resubmit this one, just looking for a clarification on the rejection.
Maybe they can see something I can’t? The lookout is at this location. I checked different layers and it’s not showing anything in particular.
For context, since that looks like a regular road. It is a designated road for pedestrians to walk on at site, including up to the lookout (vehicular traffic is extremely limited). I can grab a photo of the camp walking trail maps when I’m done work if no one believes me haha. There’s even a walking club.
It’s why I asked for more info on the location, to know where this is, and if it could possibly interfere with wildlife in the area. However, even if there was an animal passing/corridor nearby, this platform is for humans to use, not wildlife; I don’t think holiday decorations would be put out for the animals crossing this area, but instead for the humans visiting.
It would really help to have the location to see if there is anything about it that would cause both rejection reasons - sensitive location and animal passing place - because the image by itself could not cause either of those.
The general area is probably -16.431994, 136.077049, but I cannot pin it down.
This wayspot certainly wasn’t rejected due to wayspot density - Ingress only has one portal in this area (of approx 300 L14 cells).
Opposite hemisphere haha! 57.75840303143489, -105.05708877562205 is the exact location of “Lover’s Lookout”. I’ve included the camp trail guide too.
I can see why the mine would make people reject this as a sensitive location (there is actually a trail marker closer to the mine that is a wayspot). But there is no official wildlife crossing or anything (and the mine tries to deter wildlife so they don’t get habituated).
This area has a lot more wayspots… four. So the density issue is the same.
I agree that it is almost certainly the mine that caused the problem, and also agree that it shouldn’t have.
I recommend resubmitting using the web submission process as you can include up to 5 supporting photos. This image of the trail guide is a definite for including (as well as linking to it) as the obvious reference to “TRAILS” should help reviewers understand that this is an area intended to visited by pedestrians. That’s the issue to be focussing on.
There is no streetview, but the lookout is visible on ‘satellite’ images. I always reference this when I need to guide the reviewers to confirming something does exist.
Also, I really hope you included “Lover’s Lookout” in the title, if not made this the entire title, as this ties in to the map (as I am paranoid, I would describe where to find the lookout on the map).
I will try the web submission. The wayspots around here really do need extra context with the trail map since to most people, a mine site = a no-go area. But since most of us are up here for 2 weeks at at time they really encourage recreational activity outside of work. There’s even bicycles in the summer.
As far as what I can see, this really should have been accepted. Dedicated overlooks are great places to socialize & explore. It’s also weird to receive appeal rejection text that seems to mismatch what was submitted.
I originally submitted this back in April so it was still snow packed when I hiked up there. I really should’ve grabbed a supporting photo again during the summer when it was clear (because it looks like this again haha). Admittedly not a super great supporting image.
You might have fallen foul of the annoying problem of reviewers hating snow [in my experience].
I found this with trail markers. I had a wonderful wintry walk (snow is rare here now!) and subbed several markers for a named trail. Almost all rejected, but when I retried without snow with the same text, they succeeded.
