Additional Information (if any): This was incorrectly deemed a duplicate of a Bush for Life sign Wayspot at -34.958190,138.706850, and the image from this nomination has been incorrectly assigned to that Wayspot. These are two separate locations; the accepted one is at the entrance to the park, and the rejected Wayspot as at a bifurcated path about 200m away, reflecting a separate area that Bush for Life maintains.
Location 2:
Wayspot Title: Bush For Life site
Location (lat/lon): -34.959686, 138.713913
City: Summertown, SA
Country: Australia
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
Additional Information (if any): This was incorrectly deemed a duplicate of a Bush for Life sign Wayspot at -34.959461,138.713469, and the image from this nomination was previously assigned to that Wayspot, however through the webchat, I have been able to get it removed. Again, these are two separate signs. The accepted Wayspot has a metal frame and is at the top of the hill. The rejected Wayspot has a wooden frame and is just above the carpark, about 20m lower in elevation and 150m away.
After having the incorrect photo removed from the accepted Wayspot, I resubmitted the rejected nomination with a clear description that it was not a duplicate. However, this nomination was automatically rejected with the rationale of “This submission was declined by Scopely Explore’s automated process for not adhering to Wayfarer criteria”.
I request that both of these Wayspot nominations be reconsidered as their basis for rejection is factually incorrect and otherwise meet the Wayspot criteria as being sites that encourage exploration by virtue of being on hiking and bike trails.
Although a sign may be eligible for consideration, not every sign is acceptable.
The material they are made of is irrelevant, it is all about the function and content.
These are in my view serving the same function and each pair is close. I would rate the function of these as not that great as they simply seem to be stating the involvement of this group and not offering separate information.
This is a judgement call.
Edited ….
You need to appeal first via the website, so I will move to nomination support.
Hi @elijustrying, thank you for your message. I purposefully put this in the Wayspot Appeals category because Location 1 was appealed to Scopely and rejected as duplicate by them; location 2 was not, however falls into the same category so I considered there to be little merit in officially appealing it when there appears to be a wider issue with these signs being considered duplicates. If I must appeal Location 2 officially before being able to use the forum, I will do so, but in any event, could you please move this back to the original forum location so that Scopely can reconsider, at least, Location 1?
There is no way to have your submission freshly assessed.
Occasionally if people post an appeal outcome and it is clear that from the information the reviewers had, that the outcome of rejected is wrong (the information that was provided has not been correctly assessed) they may find that decision overturned.
Thank you for your input, @elijustrying, I appreciate your help. I can understand where you are coming from in saying that they serve the same function, but I would respectfully disagree, at least in the context of Location 1, as the accepted Wayspot is facing south and discloses Bush for Life’s involvement in the Wine Shanty Track’s restoration.
The rejected Wayspot faces east and discloses Bush for Life’s involvement in the Yanagin Road trail restoration. More photos showing this:
Unfortunately, this information is not easily gleaned from the photographs, but I thought that the very obviously different locations, backgrounds, and sign construction material would demonstrate this.
On the definition of duplicate, they simply cannot be. I could appreciate a contention that they are superfluous from the perspective of someone that has not visited the area, but I assure you that they speak to different remediation efforts.
Location 2 is more problematic, and I have less of a defence for that one as it is very clearly speaking of the same area that Bush for Life are maintaining (but are evidently different physical signs, so in any event “duplicate” is the wrong moniker).
Thank you for this clarification, I had misinterpreted the purpose of the forum.
I will see if Scopely are willing to reconsider the rejection on the basis of this request, otherwise I’ll take more clarifying photos and resubmit Location 1 at a later date (I won’t bother with Location 2).
“Duplicate” is valid when something is specifically the same object as an existing wayspot. It is also a valid rejection when something represents the same POI even if it is a different object.
The easy example is a playground where the wayspot is for the slide. The roundabout should be marked as duplicate since the playground is the wayspot and that is what the initial wayspot represents, even if the submitter was trying to get round this.
