Appeal rejected for “third-party photo”, but I took the photo myself

Wayspot Appeals
1

When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:

  • Wayspot Title:Molino de gofio

  • Location (lat/lon): 28°25’21.1"N 14°01’14.8"W

  • City:Antigua

  • Country:Spain

  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):

    image
    image670×1100 117 KB

  • Additional Information (if any):

  • Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some clarification regarding a nomination and its rejected appeal.

I nominated Molino del Durazno in Antigua, Fuerteventura (Canary Islands, Spain). It is a historic traditional windmill that was used to grind gofio and is part of the local cultural heritage.

The nomination was initially rejected because it was considered to be on private property with no public access. However, the windmill is located directly next to a public road and there is pedestrian access/sidewalk alongside it, so it can be safely reached and viewed from public space without entering a private residence.

I appealed the rejection, but Niantic rejected the appeal as well. What confuses me most is that Wayfarer now shows reasons including “third-party photo” and “abusive, ridiculing or harassing content.”

I want to clarify that I personally took the submitted photo at the location specifically for this nomination. It was not taken from Google Maps, a website, social media, or any other third-party source. There is also nothing abusive or offensive in the title, description or photograph.

I previously received a warning a long time ago for using an internet photo on a nomination. At the time, a friend had simply told me to submit something as a PokéStop and I didn’t know the Wayfarer rules yet. That was my mistake, and I understood the warning. Since then, I always read and follow the nomination criteria carefully, which is exactly why this situation concerns me.

I’m not trying to dispute the rules. I would just like to understand what exactly is wrong with this nomination and why my own photograph has apparently been identified as a third-party image, especially since I don’t want to risk another warning for something I believe I submitted correctly.

Could someone from the Wayfarer team please clarify the reason for the rejection or review what may have happened here?

Thank you!

P.S.: Regarding the location and cardinal directions, please note that the Google Street View imagery available for this area dates back to 2013. Therefore, when checking the location from the different cardinal directions (north, south, east and west), the current sidewalk/pedestrian access may not be visible.

The area has changed since those images were taken, and there is now a sidewalk alongside the public road next to the windmill, as shown in my recent photos. I wanted to clarify this because relying only on the available Street View imagery could give an inaccurate impression of the current pedestrian access and safety conditions.

2

Welcome to the forum :slight_smile:

28.422528, -14.020778

The windmill is visible on streetview. A tinyeye search showed no matches; this is not from streetview and is not from any of the google images attached to this windmill.

3

There is no issue with access. Even without a sidewalk, the windmill is safely accessible.

4

Welcome to the forum.

The team considers it “third party” if it is available on any third party site. Did you post the photo anywhere on social media?

It would be easier for us to search and see what they may have hit on if you post the full resolution photo and not just a screenshot.

5

They did post on Reddit before coming here, but not before getting the result, just for the record

6

Thank you for confirming that. That was my understanding as well. I only mentioned the newer sidewalk because the available Street View imagery is from 2013 and I wanted to provide the most up-to-date information about the area.

7

You probably hit an unlucky set of reviewers. The “private property” issue is often misunderstood, since the explanation of what this means is not shown to reviewers unless they hunt for it, so often people will apply their own understanding what this means.

As a result, some people reject everything on private property, but fail to realise that most property is private, including offices, shops, pubs, pseudo-public plazas, gyms, retail parks, theme parks etc.

Single-family private residential property is the issue, not all private property.

Your appeal seems valid and you seem to have been unlucky again. Hopefully staff can comment.

8

Thank you very much for checking this! This is exactly what has been confusing me about the “third-party photo” rejection.

I can confirm again that I personally took the photo at the windmill specifically for this Wayspot nomination, and I had never uploaded it anywhere online before the nomination or appeal.

Since the windmill itself can also be verified on Street View at the submitted location, I’m hoping the Wayfarer team can take another look at the appeal. If there is no issue with pedestrian access and there is no evidence that the photo came from a third-party source, I would really like to understand whether there is any other eligibility issue preventing this historic windmill from being accepted as a Wayspot.

Thanks again for taking the time to check the image!

9

There is nothing to prevent it. It exists, is safely accessible and is a tourist attraction. Sometimes, an eligible POI will be rejected because of a problem with the submission, but it can be resubmitted with the error(s) fixed.

10

Thank you! Yes, the photo is currently on Reddit because I posted it there when asking for advice about this rejection. However, I only posted it after both the original nomination and the Niantic appeal had already been rejected.

Before submitting the nomination and throughout the appeal process, the photo had never been posted on social media or any other website. I took it myself at the location specifically for this Wayspot nomination.

So if the team found the image on Reddit now, that would have happened after their decision and couldn’t have been the reason for the original rejection or the rejected appeal.

11

I forgot to address this piece. This is just how the badly worded abuse rejection reads. It is most certainly because they had flagged your photo as third party, and not for any of this kind of content.

12

Thank you, that’s really helpful and reassuring.

That’s exactly what I wanted to clarify: whether the windmill itself was actually ineligible, or whether there was simply an issue with my submission. If the POI itself meets the criteria, then at least I know the windmill wasn’t the problem.

In this situation, since the nomination and the appeal were already rejected, would you recommend waiting for the Wayfarer team to review this thread and clarify what went wrong, or would you eventually resubmit it with an improved description and supporting photo?

13

Thank you, this clears up one of my biggest doubts. I was starting to wonder whether I had misunderstood the private property criterion completely.

From what I can see, the windmill itself is not a residence, it can be safely accessed from the public road, its location is verifiable on Street View, and it is a genuine historical/tourist POI.

Considering that, and the fact that the submitted photo was taken by me, I’m really hoping a member of the Wayfarer staff can take another look at the nomination and the rejected appeal. If there is a genuine issue that makes it ineligible, I’m absolutely happy to accept that — I’d just like to know what that issue actually is. And if there isn’t one, hopefully the decision can be reconsidered.

14

If I was close to the windmill, I would wait a couple of days to see if they respond, then resubmit.

Take a new photo :slight_smile: If you don’t find out what the problem is, consider the existing photo to be tainted and discard it.

15

Ah, that makes much more sense now! I genuinely thought those were two separate rejection reasons, which is why the “abusive/ridiculing/harassing content” part was so confusing to me.

So it seems the real issue I need clarification on is why my photo was flagged as third-party in the first place, since I took it myself and it hadn’t been posted anywhere online before the nomination and appeal.

Thank you for explaining that!

16

Staff do read every topic on the forum. I hope you either get a post here saying they have sent a DM or quietly get a new email accepting the appeal.

17

That sounds like the safest option. I’ll wait a few days and see if a staff member responds here and can clarify what happened with the appeal.

If I don’t get an answer, I’ll go back to the windmill and take a completely new main photo and a new wider supporting photo showing the windmill, the road and the pedestrian access. I’ll also improve the description with more specific historical information and explain what gofio is.

I definitely won’t reuse the current photo now that it has been flagged and has also been posted online. Hopefully a fresh submission with everything as clear as possible will have better luck :slightly_smiling_face:

Thanks again for all your help!

18

That’s really good to know, thank you! In that case, I’ll definitely wait a few days before doing anything else with the nomination.

Hopefully the staff can take another look at it and figure out what happened, especially with the third-party photo flag. Getting a surprise email saying the appeal has been accepted would certainly be the best outcome :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I’ll keep an eye on both the forum and my email. Thanks again for all your help!

19

Following the comments about whether the windmill could be located on single-family private residential property, I checked the location in the official Spanish Cadastre.

The parcel containing the windmill (Polígono 2, Parcela 130) is listed with agricultural use. More importantly, the windmill itself appears as a separate 19 m² construction classified with industrial use, not residential use. The cadastral record also includes a photograph of the windmill, confirming that this is the correct structure.

I understand that cadastral use alone may not determine Wayfarer eligibility, but I thought this information could be useful because the original nomination was rejected for being on private property. The official cadastral information does not show the windmill or its parcel as residential use.

I’m attaching screenshots from the official Spanish Cadastre for reference.

The information shown in these screenshots is publicly accessible cadastral information and does not include any protected personal information about the property owner.

image
image606×546 52.1 KB

image
image590×543 51.9 KB