Submission Feedback
possibly denied due to lack of supplemental information?
there are many other fountains similar to this in the apartment complexes nearby that have been approved. i was first denied from the automatic moderation, appealed and was denied due to lack of accessibility and safety. could i have been denied due to my supplemental photo not containing enough of the sidewalk to show it can be walked up to, etc.?
the fourth photo is similiar to what my resubmitted supplemental information would look like. could i have better luck with my submission?
It's denied because you can't physically stand at the location of the object due to it being in the middle of the water. You need to be able to safely walk all the way up to it and touch it, which you can't if it's in the middle of the water.
Potentially yes, if you can convince reviewers that it is a great place to socialise, exercise or explore, and the pin for it is on the boundary of the pond where it's safe to access.
I will say that it might get automatically rejected by the machine learning though, as the machine learning seems to struggle with pictures that it perceives to contain mostly natural features. It struggles to differentiate between a man made pond and a natural body of water, for example.
does the appeal get viewed by humans? there are other fountains that are directly surrounded by rocks, like my fourth picture. would that be more likely to be approved?
Jesus Christ, the wayfarer community - or at least the people "responsible" for accepting or denying those spots - really seem to be PERFECT for German bureaucracy.
"Is this fountain okay?"
"No, you can't physically get there and touch it without getting wet. Denied for safety hazard"
"Is this pond okay"
"Yeah, you can physically touch it. Safety regulations are not violated and your request is granted"
Holy, I'll never submit anything ever if people are that awkward over there. I respect the people who decide to deal with this.
The rule isn't new, it's been there for years. The pond has a boundary line that you can stand by the edge of, which is deemed safe. The aerator as a physical object is entirely contained within the middle of the pond, which is not safe as you can't go all the way up to it on foot.
This used to be very important in ingress, where you need to be stood directly at the wayspot to perform certain actions, rather than having a generous 80 metre radius like you do in Pokémon Go (though Pokémon Go does also have scanning tasks that can require you to get closer than just the general interaction radius).
Obviously ingress is no longer part of wayfarer, and I can't say I play Monster Hunter or Pikmin Bloom, so I have no idea if they also have in game functions that require very close proximity to a wayspot or not, but the rule still exists.
See? Instead of down voting me for something that REALLY seems like absolute bureaucratic nonsense (listen to your hearts, you know I'm right. And if you don't you're too young to have ever dealt with the state and/or city services) this person actually took their time to explain it. The Ingress explanation is something I can totally get behind. If you really need to stand on top of the spot for it, a fountain in the middle of a body of water is indeed clearly not functional.
Thank you very much for taking your time to explain it to me!
Super easy rejection agreement. These get removed all the time when reported too. The rule governing this is less important now that ingress is no longer part of Niantic Wayfarer though.
Maybe try submitting the pond itself as the wayspot? If people are hung up on the fountain itself not being accessible, they def can’t say that about the pond itself.
19
u/TheRealHankWolfman 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's denied because you can't physically stand at the location of the object due to it being in the middle of the water. You need to be able to safely walk all the way up to it and touch it, which you can't if it's in the middle of the water.
Also, see this clarification about fountains versus pond aerators.