I genuinely want to know what goes through some reviewers’ minds.
I submitted an official Camino Polaco (Way of St. James) trail marker. It’s a permanent yellow shell and arrow marking the route for pilgrims and hikers on one of Europe’s best-known pilgrimage networks.
The nomination was rejected with these reasons:
The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning
The text or photo contains abuse, ridicule, or harassment of a specific person or group
Seriously… what?
It’s an official Camino trail marker. There is no person, no group, no political message, no offensive text, nothing even remotely controversial. Apparently a shell and an arrow are now considered harassment.
Even the “lacks cultural meaning” reason is questionable. The Camino de Santiago is a centuries-old pilgrimage route recognized across Europe, and trail markers directly support exploration and encourage walking—exactly the kind of thing Wayfarer is supposed to promote.
The funniest part? Another nomination for the same Camino Polaco route in the same village was accepted just a few days earlier. So according to reviewers, the trail is eligible on Tuesday but becomes abusive and culturally meaningless on Saturday.
I understand that not every nomination will be accepted, and reviewers can disagree on borderline cases. But getting a rejection for harassment on an official pilgrimage trail marker is beyond ridiculous and makes it feel like some reviewers are simply clicking random rejection reasons without even reading the submission.
Has anyone else received completely nonsensical rejection reasons lately, or is my Camino shell secretly a radical symbol now?
Staff have explained that this is just the way the text string reads when abuse is flagged. It is usually misplacement or photo abuse when we have seen this.
This is usually seen when community reviewers have selected “Generic business”. I wonder if they were trying to tell you that they thought the trail marker was generic?
We can discuss the rejection more precisely if you post screenshots from your contributions page and give us the gps coordinates where you submitted it.
The “Abuse” rejection narrative can be flagged for a nomination for any of the following reasons (roughly in order of how often they occur):
* The photo is not yours (e.g., taken from streetview, found on another website)
* The wayspot location pin is misplaced
* The wayspot is deliberately misrepresented (e..g., on school property but pretending it isn’t)
* Another nomination was flagged and all of yours have been flagged as a consequence
* The text itself is abusive
* The nomination is controversial and likely to be offensive (e.g., a mural of terrorists)
* (there may be others)
You may be able to tell which of these is the issue for this submission, but don’t worry about being accused of being discriminatory, as this isn’t what this narrative is necessarily saying.
Unfortunately, I’ve now had another official Camino Polaco marker rejected with the reasons “likely not permanent or distinct” and “on private property which is not publicly accessible.”
This is becoming increasingly frustrating because these markers are exactly what Wayfarer is supposed to encourage: they promote exploration, exercise, and cultural discovery. The yellow scallop shell is an official waymarker of the Way of St. James, a long-established pilgrimage and hiking route that forms part of the wider Camino de Santiago network across Europe.
I can understand a rejection if a marker were actually on the grounds of a single-family residence, but that isn’t the case here. The marker is permanently installed, publicly visible, and accessible from the roadside. It serves a clear navigational purpose for pilgrims and hikers and is no different in principle from other accepted trail markers.
At this point, I’m less concerned about a single rejection and more concerned that official trail infrastructure appears to be getting routinely misclassified by reviewers. If permanent, official Camino markers are being rejected as “temporary” or “private residential property,” then there seems to be a misunderstanding of the Wayfarer criteria.
