What exactly can be considered as a park?
atsepicnu-ING
Posts: 33 ✭✭
Are there acceptable places for you where there are 2 or three benches around nothing? Or do you only recognize parks that look nice and are really used by people?
I know a few places that are in games like public parks, but in reality they are just a few benches where local **** people meet at best. Nothing beneficial or nice.
Example:
This is one of many park POIs in my city. Would you rate this kind of nomination positively in wayfarer? Are there any sub-criteria for parks and public areas?
Comments
Usually people want a park to have a sign, or some other item to tie the nomination to. Just taking a picture of some green space or flowerbeds tends to be rejected as "natural feature".
Any park with a sign is a decent nomination, the size doesn't matter.
Other things inside parks can be eligible as well as the park itself, such as exercise or play equipment, sculptures or other artistic works, or gazebos, pavilions or other places to gather and socialise. It's worth planning how to submit within parks to make the most of what is there. Generally they are excellent places for waypoints because they are safe, nice places to spend time in, good for walking, and it's possible for people to interact with the waypoints without being in anyone's way.
no sign no POI.
That's the general rule.
I really don't like this rule but it seems to be the case for reviewers. Even though it's not part of the guidelines anymore.
It leads to cases where people submit the sign rather than the item the sign is for, meaning all the waypoints in some areas are signs rather than the really cool things they represent. It makes the games look really boring, but who can blame them when they know this is the easiest way to get their waypoint accepted? There's a beautiful park I play in sometimes, where every feature has a wooden post with a number and the feature name carved into it. Very basic looking. The features themselves are really cool, like a beautiful listed building that was the old Manor house, or an Edwardian Water feature. Every single waypoint in the park is the wooden post sign. How dull.
I would always prefer a sign rather than a random object.
Let's think about this: Yoe need to review a random stone -> 1* natural
You got a sign that this stone is the stone that represents (x) and is a famous attraction -> 5* perfect POI
That's the same with parks. Normal meadows etc. are normal non-POI-worthy objects. Signs would define the park as an actual park and not just a random meadow.
Additionally, you can add and upvote other pictures added later on.
No, this is not basic rule. I know a lot of great parks and public places without signs. Should I deny them in wayfarer? Or report them in game?
Ok, so I can now submit my garden as a park? (PRP, I know. But on multi-family homes)
Also, the sign is the anchor for the POI. Otherwise, the location would be randomly placed.
And to your questions:
Deny in WF - Yes
Report ingame - No, not meeting criteria isn't a reason for removal.
It is definitely not right to reject a park that meets the criteria just because it does not have a sign.
And no, you can't nominate a garden at home because it's not a park. The park does not differ from other greenery only in that it has / does not have a sign after all.
You should see this park. It's stunning but you can't tell at all from the waypoint pictures which are all just posts with writing on the top.
And no, I can't add pictures because I'm not high level in ingress. I really hope this feature is enabled for Pokémon players too soon (it's there but doesn't work yet). At least then the sign for the waypoint can be submitted first and then a real picture of something interesting can be added once approved. Then maybe the Manor House would have a picture of the house, rather than a black wooden post, etc
of course, a garden is not a park, but a park isn't a meadow, etc.. And that's the problem why you need a sign.
You need an object to anchor the poi to. If you submit a park and its a picture like above there is nothing you can anchor it to. Yes it is in the guidelines if you read them. The poi needs to be something tangible. If the park does not have a sign you can use something else to anchor the poi but generally a sign is the best thing to use
Yes, i agree with this. I talked about the fact that if I see a nominated place that clearly meets the criteria of the park and you can see that it is not just something like in my photo above, then I will evaluate it positively even if I do not see the sign. I don't think it's necessarily a bad method.
Why is it wrong? It's up to the reviewers to use their best judgement when evaluating a POI. And if @LukeAllStars-PGO uses the judgement of "No sign no poi" to evaluate parks, then he's in his right and there's nothing wrong about it. That's the great thing with subjectivity, it allows for diverse evaluations where one person might find it ok to accept a park without a sign, while another would not, and both would be right. Remember, the guidelines are just that: Guidelines. If it doesn't state that you need a sign to have it become eligible, it also doesn't state that you don't need one. And that's what makes WF so diverse and enrichening: You might stumble upon something that wouldn't normally pass, but has a solid anchor - And it gets accepted.
Oh, I expressed in a wrong way. From my point of view it is wrong. It's a subjective opinion, and I certainly don't want to talk to anyone about his opinion. :)
Ofc, it is great to have different opinions and discuss them. It would be boring if everyone agreed in everything every time :)
Exactly, and i wasn't trying to be offensive, so if i came off as blunt, sorry about that ;)
That looks like a pocket park and I've reviewed a number of them over the years. When looking to submit a waypoint you need something to tie the waypoint to a location, that's why so many park signs get submitted. It is very hard to get a park through without one, but with a good description and a persuasive supporting showing where it meets the criteria you've got a chance. (It might only be a small one though).
The user you replied to is trying to be funny/sarcastic. In other words trolling and/or making a performance by exaggerating and twisting an opinion they don't agree with.
Why they chose to reply to you instead of people they try to provoke, no idea.
Bluntly. If you don't have energy to reply properly, please, don't reply misleadingly. There are still way too many "everything needs a sign" reviewers.
And you call my posts trolling. Oh, the irony.
Luke might be one of the few posters in this community who actually cares (Hell, he was even nominated by others to be a Vanguard/Ambassador for WF, that should give you an idea). I rarely disagree with him, and since you love to dig up my previous posts and spin me as the evil tyrant of this community, that should also give you an idea.
At the end of the day, WF is subjective. And that subjectivity is what makes it diverse. While we won't always agree with other people's mindsets, the system is built in a way that leaves the final judgment call on the hands of the reviewers. I too thought that was a problem for a long time, as you can see if you check my previous posts (Hit me up 😘). Now, it's a matter of embracing that it's not a problem, and that will lead you down a path of self-improvement when it comes to reviewing and submitting.
There's a reason why some people have such high acceptance rates on their submissions, and all we can do is learn from them, and strive for self-improvement. And i do believe @LukeAllStars-PGO to be a person that a lot of us can learn a lot from.
While I do agree that a park needs a sign to anchor, it is a very unfair rule, I know 4 parks near me, they are named parks, on google maps and have websites, but because there's no entrance sign they can never be submitted from the rule
Ask the city to create one :)
In Germany, we have "Heimatvereine", so clubs who try to increase the quality of life for the inhabitants.
I looked into it but unfortunwtly Glasgow City councils website is one of the hardest things to work out lol, a few of us have tried but to no avail. Part of the issue is as well that although there's fences round some part of one of the parks, there's not actually a proper entrance, the fences just kinda end then start up randomly again lol
Not only unfair but not consistent with other similar rules. When nominating a football pitch, or any other athletic field for that matter, the recommendation is to place the pin on the side of the pitch. While goals are suggested as anchor points, they're not mandatory and nominations in with pins placed elsewhere are typically approved.
So, why is a park of a similar size being applied different rules? Why can a pin along the borders of the park (or in the dead center, since it doesn't interfere any play) be grounds for rejection when it isn't for football pitches?
the reason is for a sportfield you still have a tangible point to anchor the poi to as per niantics guidelines. A park that has nothing but trees in it has nothing that you can quickly identify and anchor the poi to. Thats why signs are generally number 1 for park poi’s. How ever if your park has other things lets say a permanent bench and you make a very good argument as to it being the anchor for the park poi. A sign isnt 100% necessary but its definitely the easiest most identifiable point in a park to nominate
Tell me again, what's tangible about a side line 80 meters long? How does it work as an anchor to guide the player towards the wayspot when there are 4 sides to choose from with a total perimeter over 200 meters? Why is it conceptually different from the sides of a small park of a similar size?
The goal post is what is the tangible and identifiable part you nominate. According to guidelines you are to position the poi put of the field of play so you do not interfere with games.
The difference between a sport field and a small park with no signage and nothing but trees is this:
Now i understand you tend to not agree with anything I say and thats fine. But generally I’m going straight from what niantic guidelines are and these would be in line with those guidelines
Thats a really bad rule, a man made object structure is enough to get something approved in the park. You're probably thinking of patches of trees or a grass field with no sign as not eligible.
Your subject park should be valid since it has human made improvements to it. The benches and square of pavers are enough to be considered a low quality plaza. That said i once had a park with a baseball field rejected (about 3 years ago) presumably because it didn't have a sign even though i see thousands of baseball fields in game every time i review.
You're overestimating our disagreements. We have agreed on occasion, the beach PoI being the most recent example.
You're talking about the goal posts and I explicitly excepted them. They provide a clear anchor point. Nevertheless what I've seen is mostly wayspots located to the side of the pitch and not near the goals