Hi everyone, I have a question about the whole process of removing Wayspots and Scopely’s involvement. For example, in my local area there were several PokéStops featuring local cycling route signs. I would estimate around three, and I added another three over the course of a few weeks. A few weeks ago, both the newly added and the existing Wayspots featuring these signs were removed. Some were there for years. I was under the impression that these signs meet the criteria. They mark a local route (with a name/number), are maintained by a well-known organisation (with its logo), and are therefore permanent. They also serve as decision points, providing directions for the route. Can I conclude from this that Scopely considers these signs unsuitable as Wayspots, given that several of them have now been removed? And why does Scopely intervene afterwards rather than during the review process? In my opinion, there are two points at which Scopely could intervene if they believe a Wayspot does not meet their requirements: At the time of submission (AI review): Many other signs are already detected, even very local signs are automatic rejected by AI. So, if Scopely considers these signs ineligible, they could easily add them to the AI review process. After the community has voted: Scopely could also decide not to approve the Wayspot after the community has completed its review. So I don’t understand exactly why they are accepted and later removed, when there is room in the process to intervene earlier? And can I conclude that the signs are not eligble? Thanks for helping me, in my new Wayfarer journey!

Certainly strange, as other wayspots won’t be removed even though many people at this forum consider these as highly inappropriate. See: [image] Aborted Baby Memorial Stone report rejected Wayspot Appeals Thanks for the appeal, @cyndiepooh , we stand by our decision to not remove this Wayspot. The purpose of our games is to create an augmented reality experience that is interwoven with the physical world. For this reason, our platform reflects game objects that currently exist in reality. Scopely Explore does not take a stance on locations, but rather leaves these decisions up to local communities. Any changes to locations in the physical world will be reflected in our games. We encourage you to… or [image] Funeral Home report rejected Wayspot Appeals Removal reports are reviewed as per the removal criteria. This Wayspot doesn’t meet our removal criteria.

I just had a rejection for reporting a dentist’s office. That doesn’t meet criteria in any way, but it had been accepted and they are happy to keep it. These Route signs actually do encourage exercise and exploration, yet they get removed. Make it make sense. They have tried to explain which they consider to be ineligible, but I don’t get it. It is apparently the ones that point to the next juncture? Something about nodes? [image] Wayspot restoration request: Dutch trail markers Wayspot Appeals Thanks for the appeal, @Jeroenix. These signboards are directional signs to the next node which are similar to general directional signs as has been established through different discussion on this forum. These are not part of a defined trail. As a result, we are unable to restore these.

Indeed. These “nodes” are the decision points within the (inter-)national recreational bike network. The directional signs are intended to stay on the right track to reach the next decision point. (actually there is also a national walking network, a national horsebackride network and even a national skeeler network, they all use a similar sign, just different colors)

Hello and welcome @Johnieyor I can understand your confusion and frustration over this. There is an auto check that takes place before a wayspot is released for voting. We don’t know what it picks up on but it won’t be able catch them as you suggest. The community review should be where this sort of assessment takes place and if appropriate rejected. It would not be possible for staff to review them all, and at that point it would not be clear why you would have community review. It sounds as though these are of the type of markers that have been deemed ineligible as they are essentially directions to points rather than following a route. So they should not have been agreed. What probably happened was that when your new ones were being reviewed they reported along with the old ones nearby. Ideally the review process should ensure they are not agreed and there is a need for reviewer education. Without improvement at that stage people like you end up with a frustrating experience.

Thanks for answering me, the signs did check all the boxes. So I assumed indeed they are acceptable, but I see there is a bit of discussion on these signs in the Netherlands when I dived in the forum yesterday. It’s indeed not a motivating experience when you try to improve you neighborhood and it ends with wayspots being removed that where there for years. But I noticed that a very local sign, it’s only in my city gets rejected by AI. And this sign, that’s more common doesn’t. If Scopely doesn’t want this sign, why will it not be added to the auto check so this can not happen anymore? [wayspotnewa] The signs have been installed by an official organisation, are regularly maintained and ‘proof’ has been provided. The signs bear a name/number, are positioned at a decision point with directional signage, indicate a local route that encourages physical activity and often pass through scenic spots, such as a park in this case. Yes, they are mass produced but I read the trail marker rules and I tought it still fit, since it’s local. But the conclusion is that they are not eligble? I accept them myself now as well in the reviewing process. So just want to make sure that I have all the info!

Agree, even though I have never submitted these, I do believe it is really unfair given that it is only targeted at the Benelux countries (and parts of Germany). In the UK you see public footpaths approved and PROW markers, these are also often not named trails. I don’t get it why these are eligible and the bike network isn’t. I did try to explain in this post that these signs are part of an official recreational bike network, so they do encourage exercise and exploring, but it didn’t help. [image] Dutch biking trails General Discussion In my view the Wayfarer staff have taken a completely wrong position regarding Dutch biking trails. Biking is very important in The Netherlands, we have more bikes than people. The government has even decided to assign official trail markers for recreational purposes. Many wayspots have been submitted, and in my view completely justified, as these are signs that have, by law, the purpose to mark recreational bike trails. There are also many signs, again by law, to mark infrastructure direction… And according to the review criteria bike paths are eligible. [image] Dutch biking trails General Discussion As the clarification currently states that bikepaths are eligible, I guess we won’t just see the recreational trails to be nominated, but also the other bike paths (and we really, really have a lot of them) [exercise] But returning to topic, it really is strange they do meet removal criteria, as usually removal criteria are more strict than acceptance criteria.

Yeah, it’s all very difficult to understand. I dived into the wayfarer, reading a lot about the rules started reviewing and only later also submitting a few stops. Just wanted to make sure I got all the information and don’t make mistakes before I started. But now I see two problems here, the first is the discussion indeed if they are eligble. I see now that there is still discussion on this. And the second is indeed, if you don’t add them to the check and say, we let the community decide. Then the decision should be respected. Or add them to the trail marker forum post with an explanation. Just trying to do everything right, but it makes my head spin a bit xD

I don’t accept them anymore, I just skip them. I refuse to reject them as I refuse to agree with Scopely in this case, but as I know they will probably be removed anyway, I just ignore them now.

Every Public Right of Way (PROW) has a set path that you follow and has titled with a number. [IMG_1503] Not all PROW will be acceptable for example some are very short so don’t meet criteria for exercise/ exploration.

I know, but this is exactly the same for the bike network, the routes between the nodes are defined, and officially marked, and don’t have any other purpose than exploring the country.

Some questions about the proces of removing & adding wayspots

General Discussion

pokemaster4u2 November 2, 2026, 6:51pm 2

Certainly strange, as other wayspots won’t be removed even though many people at this forum consider these as highly inappropriate.

See:

Topic		Replies	Views
So Confused General Discussion	13	340	April 2, 2026
Wayspot Appeal for restoration Wayspot Appeals wheresmypokestop , appeal-removed-poi	11	107	October 28, 2026
Invalid Wayspot Removal Appeal [ Cúirt Na Leamháin ] Wayspot Appeals	34	261	October 10, 2026
Pokestops get removed General Discussion	17	954	July 27, 2025
Pokestop immediately removed day after put in-game Wayspot Appeals	15	392	May 20, 2026

Some questions about the proces of removing & adding wayspots

Related topics