Best Of
Re: Explain to me how this works like I'm a 5 years old.
As a parent of former 5 year olds i believe it... plus some of those are 🤳
Roli112-PGO
[Update] - Survey Markers - NSW Australia
So,
There was extensive discussion in this topic about survey markers and their eligibility.
The survey markers in NSW that we are referring to are regular, numbered but generic markers placed to help survey the land in the state. But. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them all across the state. They are not the trigonometrical stations that are often at the tops of hills, but little circles of steel spread throughout suburbia.
They are becoming a plague in the game. The screenshot above is an example of the egregious nature of these things. The straight line of PoI in the Wayfarer duplicates tab is the line of survey markers that you can see in the duplicate options. They are all more or less the same looking things,
What they are not are:
- A great place for exploration - they're boring generic things often in boring generic suburbs
- A great place for exercise - these things do nothing for exercise, in fact they reduce it as players are putting these in suburbs next to their houses so they don't need to walk to the nearby park
- A great place for socialisation with others - again, these do nothing for socialisation as they promote antisocial behaviours by making it easy for people to stay at home.
@NianticCasey-ING or other Niantic reps - please, you need to take another look at these markers and really have a good think about their eligibility or not. Quite clearly, they are not in the spirit of the criteria as time has now given us the opportunity to demonstrate.
Culingerai-PGO
Ingress Email Changes
Don't know why there is a discussion on this but for Ingress nominations, the acceptance email has changed to be very much the pogo email.
No more "too close" emails, generic eligible email.
The Ingress approval email change, old one on the left, new current one on the right since 11th June 2021.
So yes. Clearly the Ingress email has gotten the Pokemon Go email treatment, but does it really make sense? And why is this an ideal practice? All of a sudden, we have a middling email that is sketchy at best now and it doesn't have any direct indication that it is in-game. There's no more "too close" emails so godforbid reviewers moving your nomination within 20m of another wayspot.
But the third sentence about the nomination not being added to the Ingress app and Intel Map, and possibly to other games. Is this a preparation for what's to come? Are you going to implement yet a further granular database that goes beyond the 20m rule, and so that everything that was approved but isn't visible in Intel or the Wayfarer check for duplicates map appears in another game? I do recall that for some reason, rejected or approved but within 20m candidates did appear temporarily in Wizards Unite, but is there something else beyond that isn't on the Intel map?
To be fair, I'm a little disappointed that there is no longer a direct and straight-to-the-point email that states that the nomination was too close to existing portals and unable tio bring online. For reference, the approval email for Pokemon Go has a very similar pattern to the approval email now in Ingress.
Rejection email reversion
But the other question is, why can't you revert the change of the rejection email?
The end of the Ingress rejection email, which was fully overhauled in September 2019 to introduce the rejection reasons. Former on the left, current on the right.
Before this change, whenever a nomination was rejected, the email did suggest to resubmit the Portal candidate after improving the title, description, and/or photo. After changes in September 2019, all it advises you to do is to improve the photo. Like okay, yeah I'll just improve the photo, that's it and modify nothing else. It does not mean anything. You had the opportunity to update the approval emails, now if you could just fix this small email part so people stop spamming trash with a slightly-improved photo, that would be good.
...
But in reality, this lack of transparency of whether or not something is added to Ingress/Intel and initially, whether a Pokestop does not appear live in Pokemon GO can be disappointing for someone who has to accept that their great nomination that they are amazingly proud of won't appear in-game. And the cell restraints are disappointing anyway considering that people only see maybe a third or even a quarter of what an Ingress player would see on the same map.
HaramDingo-ING
Re: Fake POIs Ueckermünde
Sure, we'll have it reviewed again and I have asked the team to take proper actions.
NianticGiffard
Re: Positive and negative elements of wayfarer
FYI, I have a different take on the "upgrade plague".
I review a ton and submit very little, and thus I am perpetually capped on upgrades. (Well, not anymore but I have 14 and I'm over halfway to #15.). In the last year 100% of my submissions have been upgraded. In the last year 100% of my submissions have been accepted.
Hosette-ING
Re: Positive and negative elements of wayfarer
@HaramDingo-ING Partially lucky, yes. Partially skill, and being very thoughtful about how I present each candidate. The two prior to that were rejected although the candidate itself (a decorative fountain) was very clearly eligible. It was hard for reviewers to understand and approve, though, so I improved it iteratively to address the places where I thought reviewers were getting hung up. That was an excellent lesson in learning how to improve my own submissions.
I live in a fairly high-density area (downtown Oakland California) and I still find new things sometimes. I haven't played in Tokyo other than passing through Narita, but I have in Manhattan, London, Paris. I have three things live in Manhattan and one in central London near Harrod's.
I do agree with you that submissions should be fairly limited and more can be earned. That would probably knock a lot of the utter garbage out of the queue. I probably would give people an annual pool of X (maybe 14), and the rate that you earn them back is dependent on your Wayfarer rating and total agreements.
I also think that one person should only submit things on one account, period.
Hosette-ING
Re: Soccer field rejected
In addition to these, there are also other clues I look for to determine permanence if in doubt : (1) What type of goals are they? As a former coach, there is a type of goal used by local youth teams (here in the US) that is only attached to the ground by a couple stakes, like a tent. (These even move when a hard shot hits the crossbar.) (2) Are the goals lined up facing each other? If you really look, you'd be surprised how many temporary fields exist where the goals aren't perpendicular to the supposed field of play. (3) Does the grass in the photo or supporting photo display signs of use consistent with regular play in the same spot? (If not maintained professionally, of course, in which case the answer wouldn't be in doubt.)
I also look for proof that it isn't a duplicate. Are there really two fields there or just two goalposts? Is this the same field that already has a waypoint in the form of a nearby sign?
I actually think I might have been one of your reviewers, because I reviewed one on Sunday that shared a playing area with a baseball or softball field. And I think it may have been called "Field of Dreams" too. (I remember a soccer field that had a baseball reference.) It appeared permanent. If it's the one I'm thinking about, one goalpost was near third base and the other in far right-center field. The small bleachers were arranged along the left field line so spectators could watch either game. I called it a duplicate because the same field was already a waypoint as the baseball field. But I can see how others might see the permanent baseball backstop and think the soccer goals were temporary, and so reject it that way.
TheDougie3-PGO
Re: Would you please restore the Hendrickson Park Wayspot? The park is still there. (2021-May-13)
@NianticGiffard anything on this appeal yet?
Roli112-PGO
Re: Active submitter or multiple on a military base
I specifically request an official ruling on this a year ago and did not receive one.
Prior to that, it was asked in November 2019 and answer by @NianticCasey-ING on the Ingress forums (before this forum was created)
here's what Casey said then:
Hi folks,
Pergolas are potentially eligible if they're not on private property and are safely and publicly accessible.
Drinking fountains as pictured in the OPs question are not eligible. Decorative water feature fountains are eligible.
Unfortunately Military Bases aren't as straightforward as the other two questions: not considering wayspots on bases is a legacy decision that was recently revised. We haven't been reactively removing wayspots that are on bases unless requested to do so by a commanding officer of the base but no new wayspots should be approved if they're on a military base. As Andrew mentioned in the AMA, any wayspot on a military base should automatically receive a 1* review, surpassing any other potentially eligibility notes.
Hope that helps!
Edit: Hit post too soon. I'm working to get this clarified on the help content as I can see how this is confusing based on how the emergency services note is worded. The intention there is for wayspots located near a base that would otherwise interfere with their regular activity (e.g. a statue at the front gate that blocks access to the base).
Sadly the help content still has not been updated as was promised then.
tehstone-ING
