Introducing the India Wayfarer Challenge: 16 - 26 March Learn More

Government Buildings, again

Did any buildings related to the government (except the city hall) are still ineligible under the new criteria, along with their front name sign?

There are still too many kind of this buildings were nominated in my country. Most of the buildings are located in the center of the area (either city of village area), and you can expect many government buildings there were already become Wayspots so people in that area can play the games, given that there are nothing else eligible to be submitted. Example of those buildings are (but not limited to):

- Governor's/Regent's/Mayor's council office (Kantor Gubernur/Bupati/Walikota),

- District/Sub-District/Village council office (Kantor Kecamatan/Kelurahan/Desa),

- Any kinds of public service offices (Kantor Dinas/Pelayanan) under a Ministries (Kementerian),

- District Court (Pengadilan Negeri) and any other kinds of courts,

- Any public facilities managed by the govermment used to improve the people, such as training centers (Balai Diklat), research institutions (Lembaga Penelitian), etc.,

- and many more.

And below is one of the fresh example I've reviewed, it's a sign of local District Court but as always, the submitter didn't explain anything about the building and ask reviewers to rate it 5 stars.


  • Sprodicus-PGOSprodicus-PGO Posts: 62 ✭✭

    These could be eligible as a great place to explore if the building has some architectural interest or if there is a plaque there that commemorates a part of the community's history or as a great place to be social with others and watch public life happen or even as a great place to exercise if you can pick up leaflets on walkings/sports.

    If you are reviewing then consider if the nominator has proved how their nomination has met one of the criteria.

  • WandHerring-PGOWandHerring-PGO Posts: 111 ✭✭✭

    I think that, to some extent, those are eligible under exploration criteria because of this sentence:

    a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance and which makes our communities unique and shapes its identity

    Buildings that showcase how a town/country works do constitute a destination of local importance that shapes a community's identity, probably in some of the most powerful way.

    But if we consider as placeholders representing the local political structure, then they falls under the same limitations than other objects of its kind: city halls, parliaments, court halls, head-of-state office (Elysée Palace, 10 Downing Street...)... Those are powerful placemarks representing key components of the local political system. Ministries offices wouldn't be eligible IMO because those can vary and change place depending of elections and how the legislative structure evolves. Generic administrative building are also ineligibles in my opinion because they lack the symbolism to make good placemarks.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 611 ✭✭✭✭

    Pickung up leaflets/brochures for exercise would be a farrr stretch to saying that the building itself is a place to exercise. And those would fall under temporary as it would likely change. Id say judge each case by case

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 179 ✭✭✭✭

    Most of these places are a place of business and work (trust me, I work in the public sector). Any sort of claim that they are places to be social or explore are a farce. They are simply places to do work, like any other office building.

    Very few buildings will provide tours, and usually they would have good reason to - they have historic and/or architectural significance. Which would make them inheretently notable.

    However, most, if not all, public office buildings are just generic office buildings and would not meet the criteria (new and old).

    Even though 'Generic Business' is not a rejection reason anymore, I would say Casey's original guidance still applies here (with added bold emphasis):

    Hi folks,

    Unless specifically noted, most government buildings are not eligible (including the DMV, and other "departments of...") for the same reason that we don't really accept generic businesses–they're not really gathering places or unique points of interest, like @oscarc1-ING and @JSteve0-ING called out.

    Unlike city halls or courthouses (which can be tourist destinations, locations with unique architecture or places to gather) or libraries (sometimes architecturally unique but always centers for information), an administration building by itself wouldn't be high quality location.

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 580 ✭✭✭✭

    Unfortunately, we don't do that here in Indonesia 😅

    Yes, in case of my country, most of these buildings here are just office buildings where government employees (Pegawai Negeri Sipil, just as similiar as office workers) work there, which I believe they're ineligible. However, there are some buildings that are not only open for public, but they can be used for hold local events (not just a place where local citizens 'interact' with the government such as paying taxes, manage their documents, etc.)

    Here is another fresh example of the building that are managed by the local government I reviewed just now, which I believe it's more likely a multipurpose building:

    This submitter isn't helping at all, just saying it's one of the government building of the city. The building architecture has a local unique ornament on its rooftop, however.

    The lack of information given by the submitter isn't the only problem, there's also lack of official information given from local government about this building (and it's a common problem in my country, if you're asking). I was trying to get more information about this building using Google Search, and here's what I got:

    From the search result, I found that many events held by the government were happened in that building (all the sources are from local news media), however there are no official documentation about this building itself.

    There are many other buildings like this were nominated, but without any credible source (even if the submitter just asking they need more Pokestops), I had my hard time deciding whether these buildings are worthy to become Wayspots or not.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 179 ✭✭✭✭

    There are many other buildings like this were nominated, but without any credible source (even if the submitter just asking they need more Pokestops), I had my hard time deciding whether these buildings are worthy to become Wayspots or not.

    If you're having to Google search additional information, then you're doing the job of the submitter. You're only there to review, it's the submitter's job to provide sufficient information as to why their nomination either meets criteria or is notable enough for it to become a point of interest.

    If the submitter has any intelligence, they'll either resubmit it with better information, seek out support on how to improve the nomination, or admit that the building doesn't meet criteria and give up.

Sign In or Register to comment.