Large park with similar looking sign posts

I have come across multiple instances of submissions for sign posts in very large parks. They all look absolutely identical, though just appear in different locations in the park. I have been tagging these as “duplicate”, but was wondering if that is what everyone else is doing as well?


  • Kroutpick-PGOKroutpick-PGO Posts: 237 ✭✭✭

    What are these signs for? Park/entrance name? Rules and regulation? Trail markers?

    "Duplicate" is used when it's the exact same item (or if someone is submitting an element that is part of a group of items for which there is already a wayspot. Ex : if there is already a wayspot for the "playground", then an element of the playground could be marked as duplicate. Ref : November AMA "Additionally, individual pieces of playground equipment that are submitted separately are not eligible, even though the playground at large may be. Rather, the individual pieces of equipment should be marked as duplicates to there’s just the one Wayspot for the whole playground.")

    If a park has multiples entrance sign, they are usually all eligible if there are enough distance between them.

    Generally speaking, rules and regulation sign are not eligible, as they are not visually unique or they are generic/mass produced.

    If they are trail markers, they usually have trail names and distance/km information written on. If the informations are different than another wayspot, then it's not a duplicate.

  • Testonoga-PGOTestonoga-PGO Posts: 27 ✭✭

    That would not be a duplicate, but it would justify a rejection as "visually not unique" with 1 star (or maybe 2) in that category. I already had one such object rejected, with that particular reason listed in the mail and to be fair, it's technically not wrong, although these were different signposts.

  • PORT2014-INGPORT2014-ING Posts: 42 ✭✭

    Marking as duplicate is definitely incorrect as they are different objects.

    As for being visually unique, the example in the training module was a set of identical slightly ornate streetlamps - an odd choice as they are mass produced street furniture but presumably they couldn't find stock photo examples that demonstrated what they were trying to convey. You should mark them low for being visually unique if were you to actually be stood there that you would see several of them around so wouldn't know which object is the wayspot.

    Don't 1* or even 2* something eligible just because there are others on the "Check for duplicates" section if they are different objects. If they are far enough apart, they are visually unique, it's down to how the nomination differentiates between them. The title can help, e.g. identical signs to a large park would benefit from being title "Town Park - High Street" and "Town Park - Station Road".

  • Alanazam-PGOAlanazam-PGO Posts: 14 ✭✭
    edited January 16

    Acceptance Criteria asks if the Wayspot exists. It does not ask if a specific object that placemarks an eligible area exists. I'm gonna argue that the duplicate is acceptable for park signs because the subject of the nomination, i.e. whatever the sign represents, already exists as a Wayspot.

    We already denote unique parts of some large wayspots as duplicates: athletic fields. On a baseball field, multiple objects that are part of the field are considered duplicates - signage, bleachers, scoreboard, backstop. All visually unique objects, but they represent the same Wayspot. We also do this for large buildings like churches. Individual features (e.g. belltower, architectural glass) can be stand-alone Wayspots based on their individual merit. But the church itself is one single Wayspot. We do not ask, "Is this west entrance different than the east entrance?" We ask, "Is the church that contains this bland entrance already a Wayspot?"

    Maybe the sign is different than a door because signs can explicitly denotes object. But a sign is not eligible by virtue of being a sign; signs are eligible based on their content. In the case where the sign denotes a specific area, it serves as the visual placeholder and is eligible because of the Wayspot it represents. Here, the sign is just a tangible placeholder that a player can locate. It's a representation of the Wayspot, not the Wayspot itself. (slightly different from where the sign holds information)

    The possibility for duplicates are explicitly mention in the Acceptance Criteria section for Wayspots within Large Areas. It notes that "someone may have already made a nomination on various objects/placemarkers around entrances, which could lead to a rejection (as a duplicate)." This does not limit the duplicate to a copy of the tangible thing nominated; it notes that multiple different objects that serve as placemarkers for the area can be used to denote a duplicate, and it opens up the possibility that the duplicate does not need to be applied to the exact same thing being nominated. All the duplicate needs to do it represent the same Wayspot. Although this section begins by referring Wayspots within Wayspots, the Wayspot-eligible container of large Wayspot is itself a large(r) Wayspot. Additionally, the preceding Acceptance Criteria section, Placement for Large Areas, does list parks as a type of large area. The option to duplicate non-identical objects together should exist for parks because they are large areas.

    I don't think that everything should be a duplicate - sometimes placemarker can have their own unique qualifications; in other cases, signs similar in appearance can be in disjoint sections of a park or have other buffers between them - but the criteria seems to suggest duplicating non-identical things is acceptable. Plus, seeing a series of almost identical object in-game kind of sucks. It gets difficult and unpleasant to coordinate, it limits the options for nominating better things as they get installed, and the monotony is unpleasant to look at.

Sign In or Register to comment.