Are "natural features" now allowed under Wayfinder 3.1?

I do not see that natural features are excluded anymore, and the criteria states: "Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area"

As an example, a waterfall is "a permanent physical, tangible and identifiable place". I no longer see that a signboard is required for this.



  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 68 ✭✭✭

    Well, that was just an example, but specifically in terms of a waterfall, I have been to many where you can get right up to it, or even behind the water flow.

    That said, I also no longer see a requirement that the object/location needs to be touchable anymore... have I missed this?

    Heck, they have now:

    • Hiking trails
    • Biking trails

    ...with no stipulation of needing trail markers. I've already seen a submission of just-a-bike-path (but this is literally for exercise and exploring, so.....), though I've rejected it for being "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting".

    Anyway, the point being: I understand that they are trying to simplify the guidelines, but in doing so have opened up old resolved issues to continued questions.

  • mcwomble-INGmcwomble-ING Posts: 32 ✭✭

    Ah but a waterfall would invariably collect into a pool, which could be used for swimming and therefore would be 1* decline. 😁😁😈

  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 68 ✭✭✭

    Even going with that, by 3.1 criteria, I didn't think that swimming pools were an automatic rejection anymore either.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Swimming pools are eligible according to guidelines atm. Public accessible promotes exercise and is permanent? How ever for things like a walking path it still has to be visually unique to its immediate surrounding. So you cant take a picture of a sidewalk and say its a trail. You have to prove that it is a trail first off, then they need a location to anchor the poi to. So if a sidewalk that looks like everyother sidewalk in town will never get passed. Same if you take a picture of a tree for a forest. Yeah its permanent. But how do you differ it from the whole forest.

  • JSteve0-INGJSteve0-ING Posts: 502 ✭✭✭✭

    I notice that "Natural Feature" is still listed as a stand-alone reason for rejection and that the picture of the lake without a sign is featured in the ineligible photos section. Based on these, I don't think the guidance on natural features has really changed. They can be a great place to explore or exercise, but without a man-made sign to tie the location to, they appear to not be eligible on their own.

    Your example of a waterfall or some other discrete feature like a natural arch could be potentially associated with a single location, but most natural features like forests or lakes could have any number of "correct" locations.

  • ShadowDHA-PGOShadowDHA-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    What do you think about parks without a sign?

  • Fortnite290-INGFortnite290-ING Posts: 168 ✭✭✭

    @ShadowDHA-PGO Parks and Squares are eligible without the sign, as a square (+ name of the neighborhood square), which would be a tree with fixed toys and a gym, representing a square.

  • Fortnite290-INGFortnite290-ING Posts: 168 ✭✭✭

    @ShadowDHA-PGO Squares sometimes have a sign to indicate, with its function of offering leisure, parks usually have a sign to "name", parks are green areas free of buildings, whose function is ecological, aesthetic and leisure. The difference is difficult to identify.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Again, without a sign as a placemarker, Niantic have said they do not qualify as a POI. "1* - Un-named greenspace"

  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 68 ✭✭✭

    I cannot find "natural feature" on the "Rejection Criteria" pages:

    Nor on another "Eligibility Criteria" page:

    I do see the lake-without-a-sign picture, but the text above it that should be related no longer mentions "natural features".

    Where are you still seeing this, please?

  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 68 ✭✭✭

    Is this based on the new Wayfarer 3.1 criteria? It states "Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area". Given that this is chock-full of "or" conditions, it should mean any of the following:

    • a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place
    • a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable object
    • a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable object that placemarks an area

    As such, a park should be acceptable without signage since it's a permanent physical, tangible and identifiable place.

    Even the "Content Guidelines" page indicates: "Larger areas like dog parks or sport fields make great Wayspots, but it is important to choose the right placement of the Wayspot that respects the activity it was designed to support. Instead of placing the Wayspot in the center of an open field, park, or other large area, place it at the entrance or where there is a visible sign or placemarker. [...]"

    Again, this is an "or" condition, such that the wayspot could be placed at any of:

    • at the entrance
    • where there is a visible sign or placemarker

    I have to admit that I'm not sure that I like this very much, but that is the way it's presented. If there's additional clarity elsewhere, please do let me know.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There has to be something to anchor the poi to though. A picture of a grassy field will not pss as one its not visually unique to the area. The nomination needs a single point to be able to identify when looking at the poi. If the prk doesnt have a sign but has a gazebo, playground you can use those to represent the prk or better yet nominate them on there own. You may get away with taking a picture of the structures in a park and saying “name...park” but without something to anchor that is tangible it would not be valid as a “field”

  • Vorxnyx-PGOVorxnyx-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    I would love more clarification on this. As an example, in a local park, there is a large pond with trails and such around it. According to the park map it has a name, although there is no sign near the lake (otherwise that would be the poi). There is a place on a trail by the lake that is a great natural vantage point for the pond. In my interpretation of the new criteria, that is a perfectly acceptable poi. It's clearly a great place for exploration and exercise by virtue of being a large pond in a major park with plenty of trails around it, so it meets two eligibility criteria. It is equally obviously a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place. So we get down to "safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians." I've attached a picture with a proposed location below.

    The blue circle is the proposed location because it's an excellent vantage point across the entire lake. So far, I think this is all fairly standard (bearing in mind that Natural Features are no longer a rejection criteria per the new guidelines). It's certainly more notable, interesting, and worth visiting than some of the trail markers around the park (ty for the upvotes on those trail markers!!!) So we get to pedestrian accessibility. Obviously, the lake itself is not accessible to pedestrians. But let's take a look at the guidelines, specifically "Placemarkers for Large Areas" -

    "Larger areas like dog parks or sport fields make great Wayspots, but it is important to choose the right placement of the Wayspot that respects the activity it was designed to support. Instead of placing the Wayspot in the center of an open field, park, or other large area, place it at the entrance or where there is a visible sign or placemarker. That encourages you to approach the area to visit the Wayspot, without having to enter or interfere with the activities within."

    This provides clear guidance that there are some nominations where we're expected to use some flexibility when it comes to placing the actual PoI with relation to the place it marks. Based on that, as the local expert on the ground, I think that circled spot is the most appropriate place to put a PoI marking the entire lake and it is very pedestrian accessible.

    However, it is going to get rejected because a) people are still hung up on outdated guidance and b) the new guidance isn't as clear as it should be that natural features are acceptable. Can't do anything about a), but more clear guidance for b) would be very helpful.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Theoretically it would be a good waypoint. How ever one can make the arguement of how is that unique to every other spot around that lake to look at, theres nothing to tie the poi to if you just take a scenic picture of the lake. Thats where in my mind it falls short. If someone who was never around that lake looked at that poi would they be able to find it without having to rely on pokemon go or ingress to find the portal/stop. Thats why scenic lookouts tend to have a stand overlooking something or a tower. Even a sign ive seen before signify the scenic point. How unique is overlooking the pond in that one area as compared to every other spot

    Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area

    Tangible-capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.

    by that criteria id say it would be able to be rejected as it isnt tangible, is it easily identifiable from rest of lake? Most likely not. And it isnt an object that places that area

  • AbinitioZ-PGOAbinitioZ-PGO Posts: 34 ✭✭✭

    unless niantic wants another giant lawsuit on their hands...pools should not be eligible.

    pools fall into the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine in the US and if anyone is injured/dies the owner of the attractive nuisance is liable. here, niantic’s AR pin (their asset and property) is superimposed on/near the pool WITHOUT the permission/knowledge of the owner (be it the city/county, homeowners association, or apartment complex) would make Niantic liable for the Deathor/injury. 

    Thats why they were so quick to remove it from the website. 

    Now, why they were readded in the amas , I would have to guess that it’s because, as we all know, niantic is Amazing at communicating with player and within the company /s/. Regardless, I would be okay with the famous Olympic pools because those usually have a lifeguard on duty and security cameras and are actually historical. The local apartment/community pools most often don’t.

    Honestly, @NianticCasey-ING should have had a serious talk with Niantic lawyers before amending the criteria again. I do not want the company to enter another giant lawsuit. Especially over something as obvious as an attractive nuisance pool case that even a 1st semester law students could point out.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was just pointing out that because of the new criteria that completely overrules all previous ama’s that pools would be an eligible poi as of now. Im sure once the november ama’s come out they will put in place a lot of new things that they originally had put a ruling out for that now are void because of new criteria

  • JSteve0-INGJSteve0-ING Posts: 502 ✭✭✭✭
  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 68 ✭✭✭

    Good morning,

    I understand that this is still on the reviewer interface, but this is no longer indicated on the rejection page; Niantic is also going to be doing additional updates to the reviewer interface, so I think this just hasn't been done yet:

    Still to come:

    • [...]
    • Updating the Review page interface
    • [...]

    I had read (somewhere?? now I cannot find it) that part of the updates was to make some of the options yes/no, rather than a 5-star rating scale - this makes sense for things like "pedestrian safety"; however, this update has not been done yet. As such, I believe that this 'legacy' reason for rejection is still listed in the interface, even though it may not be valid anymore.

    Frankly, I hope the interface is redesigned to follow the new criteria methodology.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    With the criteria refresh, how has that change affected how reviewers should consider swimming pools? 

    • Similar to before the criteria refresh, swimming pools at private residences or hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible. Other than that, pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more.

    Just prt of the new ama’s which is there guidance. Just saying 🤷‍♂️ Im right

  • EdelveiceUA-INGEdelveiceUA-ING Posts: 3 ✭✭

    Does famous natural feature deserve to be accepted, if there’s NO clarification mark with the information about it?

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,619 Ambassador

    I would accept a local hotspot if it is something super special. But most of these hotspots have information signs, which are 100% netter to get accepted. I remember when I was in holydays, I found a cool waterfall, which was a POI.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If there's no sign at all (strange for a famous one), where would you place the pin?

    If it spans several Km, how many wayspots can you add? (reviewers won't see the other ones)

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If it's a famous feature, there is usually a sign or two somewhere about it - submit those.

  • Rostwold-INGRostwold-ING Posts: 172 ✭✭✭✭

    This is a fundamental problem with allowing large natural features, we should only accept one wayspot, more than one would be a dupe, but reviewers will not be able to check large natural features thoroughly.

  • Vorxnyx-PGOVorxnyx-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭
    edited December 2020

    But that's not necessarily a reason for rejection, only something to look out for while reviewing. And how much potential for abuse could there be if the requirement for abuse is that the stops be located kilometers apart?

    edit: while I'm bumping this topic, "Natural Feature" is still a criteria for rejection and should be considered for removal from that list. Other rejection criteria adequately cover the requirement.

  • Vorxnyx-PGOVorxnyx-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    Bumping this topic. Just had a nomination rejected for "Nomination appears to be a natural feature (waterfall, mountain, lake, etc.) that is not connected to a man-made object." Per the criteria, this is not a valid reason for rejection. Why is it still an option in the reviewer interface?

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Because people are submitting things like trees with titles like "Old / Historic Tree" as a potential POI, I've had several "Trees" on my reviewing screen in the last few days. I reject these as a "Natural Feature".

  • Diskrepansi-INGDiskrepansi-ING Posts: 68 ✭✭✭

    Agreed. I've now seen individual trees - even in someone's front yard - or a plain boulder, neither with any provable historical or cultural significance, yet described as "The oldest [whatever] in town!"

    At least the one on PRP is an easy reject, but with the change in criteria, what if it actually is the only tree/boulder in the area, thus being "easily recognizable" and "encourages exploration and/or exercise", depending on location...

    Also, does the object itself need to encourage exploration and/or exercise? Or would the fact of it becoming a wayspot then be the encouragement? Example: "Normally I wouldn't come out into the middle of this expansive field, but now that there's a gym/portal, I will."

Sign In or Register to comment.