Best Of

It is rather peculiarly placed that it raises suspicions that is is deleberate. So, why not just take the scooter out of the shot?

A high school is not a legitimate wayspot. Niantic forbids wayspots that are on K-12 property, which is Americanspeak for any school that is primarily for students 18 and under.

What @Shakananas-PGO says is true.

Each game has a proximity rule that determines whether a new wayspot will be able to be added to that game or not. In Pokémon Go they use an invisible grid of Level 17 S2 Cells with a limit of one Pokéstop or Gym per cell. So if you submit something in a cell that already contains a Pokéstop or Gym, it won't show up in Pokémon Go (though if the existing stop gets removed, the other wayspot then would be able to appear, so it's like having a backup in that sense). If you search the internet for the Pokémon Go Hub Comprehensive Guide to S2 Cells in Pokémon Go, it can help explain a little bit more.

Unfortunately, the Pokémon Go team believes it would break your immersion in the game if they were to use wayfarer terminology during the submission process, rather than Pokémon Go specific terminology. So they say that you're submitting a Pokéstop and don't mention anything about proximity rules, when in actuality what you're submitting is a wayspot for the Niantic Lightship database that may get used in the game you submitted it from if it meets the proximity requirements.

As for why they may end up in other games, the developers for each game are their own teams, and they set their own proximity rules for their game. For example, in Ingress, rather than using Level 17 S2 Cells, they have it so that a new wayspot needs to be at least 20 metres from an existing wayspot in order to become a Portal. In Wizards Unite, back when that existed, they used Level 18 S2 Cells instead. It's what each dev team feels is appropriate for the gameplay in their game basically.

I don't like the descriptions I'm seeing coming through. Sounds like an advertisement more than a description. I've been rejecting those.

This nomination is supposed to be pokemon sticker on an electricity box and was past of the abuse wave from the Netherlands. This has also extremely affected NRW.

Stickers on a box are considered temporary and therefore ineligible by Niantic, especially those that came from the mentioned abuse.

As NRW is affected, this means that over the next months, you will see possibly thousands of correct removals such as this one.

@HarryTasker-PGO This example is removed from all games, just at different times. The appeal channels are open, you can try it, but as it clearly fulfills rejection criteria, they will not restore it.

Do not make assumptions about criteria from stuff that is currently in-game in your area. These can be heavily incorrect due to this situation.

@ViitCZ-ING the opinion of your community is that this is acceptable. I have not spent time trying to look at it

You seem to have shifted your focus onto trying to impose some personal view of “quality”. This is why it is put to the community to gain a consensus.

Providing the questions in the review flow have been answered in a reasonable and accurate way there is no problem.

The difference between schools and playgrounds is parents leave their kids in the care of others at schools, while in playgrounds parents supervise their own kids.

This is the logic Niantic want us to use when it comes to rejecting or accepting wayspot. If a child is left under someone else's care such as a nursery, reject. Playgrounds do not fall under this.

The only pedalphile problem around here is cyclists on pavements and jumping red lights 😉

Personally I don’t waste time on them.

They are not optional in reviewing but if a category is not obvious then it gets other. I find searching for the right category that uses words that I wouldn’t use, just downright frustrating. So I don’t go there.

Playgrounds are one of the few types of things that are reliably available to be wayspots in suburban and rural communities. Niantic has a significant challenge with making these areas playable without resorting to allowing completely uninteresting things into the games, and playgrounds were partially a concession to making those areas more playable.

There's another argument for why playgrounds aren't generallyproblematic, and that's the interaction range of Niantic games compared to the size of a playground. There used to be a lot of discussion on the forum about how pins on playgrounds had to be placed precisely at the edge or just outside of the edge so that they wouldn't interfere with the playground itself. I did a study of this by looking at a lot of playgrounds and drawing a 40 meter radius circle around the center of the playground to see how far away one could be and still interact with the playground. As it turns out, most playgrounds are quite small, in the range of 10-15 meters in diameter, and it's almost always easy to interact with a playground from a significant distance. The interaction range for Ingress players is 40 meters, but for Pokemon Go it's 80 meters.

Here's one of the larger playgrounds in my area with three circles drawn over it. The inner circle is the size of a typical small playground. The middle circle is the Ingress interaction range, and the largest one is the Pokemon Go interaction range. As you can see, Ingress players have plenty of room to interact without being on the playground and PoGo players have four times as much space to interact... they can reach the playground from public property without even being in the park. I understand your philosophical argument for why playgrounds are problematic and I don't entirely dosagree, but I don't think it's much of an issue in practical terms.

(The first person to tell me that Ingress players need to be able to stand exactly on the wayspot will get a very strong "NO WE DON'T" from me. I will include screenshots of my Founders' badge, 375 million AP, and 850K resonators destroyed to establish my credibility.)