The only issue is that it’s near a uranium mine, which for sure is an industrial site and considered an ineligible location. The POI’s relation to the mine can be seen below (the lookout is circled in orange)
Thankyou thankyou 
The existence of the map saying “River Trail Guide” should overcome this issue.
Leaving that aside, are industrial sites really ineligible?
From the rejection criteria: “Location obstructs the driveways of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of […] industrial sites […]” Niantic Wayfarer
Industrial sites are not ineligible. Anything that would interfere with the operations is. A lookout tower for pedestrians does not do this.
1 Like
It is near, but are they obstructs the driveway of industrial site? The area seem like it is intended for people to visit.
1 Like
And this particular location does not require personal protective equipment to visit. You can wear street clothes and regular shoes to hike to it and you’re not walking through any active mine workings to get to it.
3 Likes
I think this may have given you insight into the rejection 
1 Like
Its obvious to me that this isn’t part of the mine - it’s part of the trails and recreation that is near a mine. I hope the decision is overturned. I also don’t understand why anyone thinks the mine has anything to do with it -the appeal reviewer rejected it for a completely wierd reason about animals, not industrial sites
3 Likes
This would have been a good thing to include in the nomination, if not in the description, but in the supporting info. While you do note it can be accessed safely, that doesn’t always mean that it’s safe from the mine. Noting that it’s safe to access without safety equipment may have been helpful. This may explain the original rejection reason, but for sure not the appeal rejection reason.
There’s 2 rejection reasons, so both need to be looked at. Sensitive location somewhat makes sense, due to the mine being nearby. As for animal crossing, this is a little harder to understand, but being this is part of a trail system, you most likely will see wildlife, which could be the reason for the appeal rejection.
Not trying to throw shade at you, but this feels like a huge stretch to support what feels like bad text copypasta.
The Wayspot nomination in question is an animal passing area, which is an ineligible location under Wayspot rejection criteria.
This is just wrong and if a staff is using this, the text should be removed, corrected, or elaborated.
4 Likes
Hence why I said “could.” I’m not making a statement of fact, just a guess.
We’re all trying to figure this one out and give our perceptive of what could have happened, because we don’t know exactly what happened.