@FrealafGB-PGO@Aeryle88-PGO I just heard you say the same thing, but not using the same words. Allow me to reword what I think you're saying, please?
"It would be good if Niantic did a better job of educating reviewers about criteria for eligible and ineligible submissions." I don't blame the reviewers for this-- Niantic does a horrible job of communicating to reviewers, and in making the criteria easy to understand. I work pretty hard to study the criteria and stay abreast of updates, and there are many cases where I legitimately can't tell you if a rule is still in effect or not. I search, and I find a Niantic clarification in a forum, but was that before ore after the November 2020 clarification that changed it again? Do I really need to sequence all of the rules and clarifications and forum comments on my own just to know how to review correctly?
Now imagine a typical reviewer who doesn't visit forums, who read the rules once just to pass the test and often doesn't even know that they've been updated. How could they know if Niantic doesn't make it abundantly clear to them? I don't expect every reviewer to spend a couple of hours every month searching for rules updates and trying to interpret them.
Niantic could solve a lot of this by asking for the "What is it?" category first and then showing reviewers the exact criteria that apply based on the chosen category. When the criteria got updated reviewers would automatically get the new criteria on their screen instead of the old ones. Best of all, they'd never have to guess or rely on their faulty memory.
I do agree that criteria updates should be pushed to everyone who reviews. Maybe a popup when the criteria are updated that has to be read and acknowledged before reviewing.
Although at the moment, every time I go to review there is a message on screen promoting me to review the criteria and refresh my memory, which is good. If I didn't stay up to date I'd definitely click on it more often, and I do periodically click it anyway just to re-read.
As I understand it, the new criteria are intended as a reset and if something meets those criteria and doesn't meet any rejection points like private residential property then it can be eligible. So I personally don't look back at old rules, I just use the new ones and my best judgement, which I do adjust based on density too.
I find that the biggest problem with rural submissions is that they tend to be way more focused on the local aspect. By that I mean things the locals consider landmarks might not be obvious to outsiders, "hot spots" aren't always what an outsider would consider all that special, and the line between private and public is a bit more blurred (lack of obvious sidewalks, dominate fencing, etc). And it seems like no mater how hard the submitter tries, there's very little chance of selling these submissions to the outside reviewer.
For example, my step-son's other family half lives further out in a rural area. He has been trying to get a couple spots accepted every time he's out there, otherwise the game just doesn't get played. Things like old structures and art on corners that are used as landmarks for navigation, etc. or even the little horse hotel down a ways. Everything is rejected for private property and/or no pedestrian access.
But there is still one more problem: fake Wayspot, is something that in Brazil has a lot of video explaining "How to create your Fakestop ...".
It gets very annoying, stealing or taking pictures of the indications in the reviews and says "He exists" or "Improve gameplay", I even saw a false indication reviewing one in Grussaí, RJ, where one of the reviewers from another state, has this wayspot indicated in ES.
For now I will not appeal, until I realize if it was accepted.
Fake wayspot will always be a problem but it's not specific to rural area.
The fact is: the more there are false rejection in rural area, the more a few players in rural area will try to submit a fakestop, in order to play.
That's bad and people who fake wayspot should be banned, but i'm sure that is there is less false rejection and more thing allowed as a wayspot, especially in rural area and in natural places, there will be less people who try to fake a spot.
Just curious - here's one that has been rejected for "No pedestrian access" and "Private residence/farm". Located on a rural road, no sidewalk - but about 2 cars per hour drive by :)
53°11'47.8"N 6°36'56.5"W - Google Maps - plenty of space around it to not stand on the road while interacting, and outside of private property (and even far enough from the residential building inside the fence. Purely a historic/decorative feature. Just trying to gauge the community sentiment before wasting any more submissions on it.
If you look Streetview following the link, then clearly both "PRP" and "No pedestrian access" are valid rejection reasons. The "object" is on the driveway of a PRP and there is no footpath / pavement on the road. I would reject this house sign every time.
Thanks for sharing your view, guess that's the reasoning whoever reviewed that used as well.
Must disagree though on both, as
a. it's outside the fence and does not require players to enter private property, and it's pretty far away from the actual house to be considered a "homespot" (disclosure - I live a good few miles away from there and have plenty of existing spots within 5 minute walk, so not trying to rig it in my favor)
b. you won't get any sidewalk ever in rural areas; I'm using that road to run several times a week and see people walking there quite often.
That's exactly why I'm asking in this thread, as it started as discussion on rules applicable to rural areas.
A. Fences do not always mark a property boundary and cannot be used to judge where the property line is.
B. Neither Niantic or reviewers are going to know how heavily trafficked a road is and must treat all roads as nonpedestrian areas as a matter of player safety.
C. Having different rules for different area is only going to cause more confusion. You will even have some players asking why a rule for Area X wouldn't also apply to their nomination in Area Y. It simply creates a double standard that is best avoided, even if you thing that double standard is "more fair" for your situation.
Just gonna point out countries already have different rules from other countries. And I do think rural areas should be looked at a bit different when it comes to pedestrian access. I've seen several places where the road is literally at the front door of the house, there is no pavement, and these were in villages
Here's a photo of the object, and from what I can see it is clearly inside the "property line". The argument that "it does not require players to enter the property" is essentially the same as "but I can see the spot from the sidewalk". It does not matter, if the nomination is on PRP then it is a 1* "auto-rejection" no matter what.
I get the sentiment (although in Ireland land registry is non-conclusive, and if you look at the registry map it will have the line go along the centre of the road). Not going to argue as that's not my area of expertise - if anyone here by chance has additional insight on how this works legally, I will take the opportunity to learn.
Yeah, the current wayspot concept and the gameplay mechanisms are rigged pretty heavily against rural players. I try to be as lenient as I can in areas with nothing there, but offhand this looks like a tough sell. Is that secondary road a driveway from that point onward? Or just part of a more scenic drive? In this case, it's rural, so I'm not concerned about the pedestrian aspect. It's accessible. I'd be focusing on the PRP aspect. Of course, you get other people focusing on other things.
You can try beefing up whatever history you have on the well. Submit without an upgrade if you can and just let it sit. Up to you how much time you want to keep spending on it.
Yeah, more or less a driveway, going on for about 60m towards the house - with a clear gate installed to designate private grounds limit. Again, not sure about legal side of it, but in Ireland these pockets before the gate are considered fair game if you need to make a U-turn or like - no one's gonna **** ye if you do that or just hang out without entering :)
Not sure how this would be interpreted outside of the states, but if you were standing next to this well it would not be considered on trespassing and clearly this is outside the fenced area. If you were inside the gate, then yes you would be trespassing but if you pulled off the side of the road here you would not be considered trespassing. Pedestrian Access is likely not accurate. There are multiple buildings on the property so not sure the Single Family Private Residence rational is accurate either, but an argument exists for private farm.
I have two seperate issues with this submission. The first is if you click around the street view you can see a photo from July 2011 where the well clearly does not exist. I would questions how "historic" this well is. Decorative yes, but historic no. Which leads me to the larger issue... what criteria would this fall under? Its not a place to exercise, or explore. If it had been a historic well that had been there for travelers for a 100 years I would buy the case that it is a place to socialize with your fellow neighbors, farmers, or travelers but its less then 10 years old.
I would simply have marked this as Does not meet acceptance criteria.
Its a tough break for rural players, agreed. I deal with this constantly where I live. Sadly, this simply does not pass the basic test for acceptance and it has enough other things working against it that it will get rejected for more inaccurate reasons as well.
To me, that last image is pretty convincing. It's not the same as a city house right on a sidewalk, the well is outside not only a fence, but a gate, which tells me that's where the property line ends. A fence in rural areas is meant to literally mark property boundaries, not just keep people out of a yard that technically might go up to or beyond a sidewalk. In rural areas, I interpret the pedestrian rule to mean whatever is normal pedestrian movement for that area, which is typically along the edges of roads. Plus, it's already been established that wide grassy or gravel non-road spaces count as safe pedestrian access, which this has.
As far as it not being 100 years old ... I wouldn't care. It's a rural area, so I'm going to be more lenient. Plus, it doesn't really have to be. If it's a literal point of interest, something unique that stands out from the surroundings for the type of location it's in (rural area with not much else around), it at least meets the exploration criteria.
Sure it's not perfect, but it's not like it's a big deal? It's not close enough to anything to be a couch stop. It's on a road, which benefits all the other walkers, not just the house. Nobody will lose anything from the existence of the POI, and it could ultimately benefit a lot of rural people who have nothing else. I think it's passable enough to work, and I think I would approve something like this.
But yeah, this is going to be hard just because of all just justifications you will get for it not being acceptable. Ultimately, it just comes down to individual opinion, and there's not one right approach to these. You're probably going to have to keep trying to find that sympathetic crowd, and use the photos that best make your claim that it's not PRP, and then be careful of making other claims (like historic) if it's not true. You might want to do more research on the story behind it, if you haven't already.
@Oakes1923-PGO , @CipherBlakk-PGO , it may not be considered PRP in the states, but where its placed in the UK would 100% be PRP, when you own a property with a driveway you own the land and drive up to the connection with the pavement (sidewalk) / road .
As there is no pavement here the PRP limit would extend all the way up to the edge of the road.
Luckily, we're not in UK - for about a hundred years now :D
I've made a few inquiries with the older local crowd, seems like the well got actually moved there, or rather rebuilt, as a sort of "rural art" if you may call it that. It was once on the grounds, but current owner thought it would be a nice addition to the roadside (and serve as location marker as well). It's not a functional well/pump, as the whole community has proper water supply now - but reminds of the older days when this kind of manual pumps were the only option aside from plain bucket on a rope.
So yes, just literally "an fun object to see while taking a walk" - somewhat close to definition of a POI :)
I'd lean in on that angle then. Maybe mentioned that a local artist rebuilt the well from an existing historic well, and that it was moved to be accessible to all, that it is functional and meant to use by the public and any passerby.
I'd agree that the access is not the issue but maybe mention that it does not sit on private property.
Comments
@FrealafGB-PGO @Aeryle88-PGO I just heard you say the same thing, but not using the same words. Allow me to reword what I think you're saying, please?
"It would be good if Niantic did a better job of educating reviewers about criteria for eligible and ineligible submissions." I don't blame the reviewers for this-- Niantic does a horrible job of communicating to reviewers, and in making the criteria easy to understand. I work pretty hard to study the criteria and stay abreast of updates, and there are many cases where I legitimately can't tell you if a rule is still in effect or not. I search, and I find a Niantic clarification in a forum, but was that before ore after the November 2020 clarification that changed it again? Do I really need to sequence all of the rules and clarifications and forum comments on my own just to know how to review correctly?
Now imagine a typical reviewer who doesn't visit forums, who read the rules once just to pass the test and often doesn't even know that they've been updated. How could they know if Niantic doesn't make it abundantly clear to them? I don't expect every reviewer to spend a couple of hours every month searching for rules updates and trying to interpret them.
Niantic could solve a lot of this by asking for the "What is it?" category first and then showing reviewers the exact criteria that apply based on the chosen category. When the criteria got updated reviewers would automatically get the new criteria on their screen instead of the old ones. Best of all, they'd never have to guess or rely on their faulty memory.
I do agree that criteria updates should be pushed to everyone who reviews. Maybe a popup when the criteria are updated that has to be read and acknowledged before reviewing.
Although at the moment, every time I go to review there is a message on screen promoting me to review the criteria and refresh my memory, which is good. If I didn't stay up to date I'd definitely click on it more often, and I do periodically click it anyway just to re-read.
As I understand it, the new criteria are intended as a reset and if something meets those criteria and doesn't meet any rejection points like private residential property then it can be eligible. So I personally don't look back at old rules, I just use the new ones and my best judgement, which I do adjust based on density too.
I find that the biggest problem with rural submissions is that they tend to be way more focused on the local aspect. By that I mean things the locals consider landmarks might not be obvious to outsiders, "hot spots" aren't always what an outsider would consider all that special, and the line between private and public is a bit more blurred (lack of obvious sidewalks, dominate fencing, etc). And it seems like no mater how hard the submitter tries, there's very little chance of selling these submissions to the outside reviewer.
For example, my step-son's other family half lives further out in a rural area. He has been trying to get a couple spots accepted every time he's out there, otherwise the game just doesn't get played. Things like old structures and art on corners that are used as landmarks for navigation, etc. or even the little horse hotel down a ways. Everything is rejected for private property and/or no pedestrian access.
But there is still one more problem: fake Wayspot, is something that in Brazil has a lot of video explaining "How to create your Fakestop ...".
It gets very annoying, stealing or taking pictures of the indications in the reviews and says "He exists" or "Improve gameplay", I even saw a false indication reviewing one in Grussaí, RJ, where one of the reviewers from another state, has this wayspot indicated in ES.
For now I will not appeal, until I realize if it was accepted.
Fake wayspot will always be a problem but it's not specific to rural area.
The fact is: the more there are false rejection in rural area, the more a few players in rural area will try to submit a fakestop, in order to play.
That's bad and people who fake wayspot should be banned, but i'm sure that is there is less false rejection and more thing allowed as a wayspot, especially in rural area and in natural places, there will be less people who try to fake a spot.
In rural or urban environments, the first thing I do is make sure the nomination actually exists where placed.
I would like those people that nominate some thing else to receive a ban if the habit is ongoing.
Regarding Niantic, updates would be nice but effort to keep up to date. I have mixed thoughts about updates. I review more than most people.
Just curious - here's one that has been rejected for "No pedestrian access" and "Private residence/farm". Located on a rural road, no sidewalk - but about 2 cars per hour drive by :)
53°11'47.8"N 6°36'56.5"W - Google Maps - plenty of space around it to not stand on the road while interacting, and outside of private property (and even far enough from the residential building inside the fence. Purely a historic/decorative feature. Just trying to gauge the community sentiment before wasting any more submissions on it.
If you look Streetview following the link, then clearly both "PRP" and "No pedestrian access" are valid rejection reasons. The "object" is on the driveway of a PRP and there is no footpath / pavement on the road. I would reject this house sign every time.
Thanks for sharing your view, guess that's the reasoning whoever reviewed that used as well.
Must disagree though on both, as
a. it's outside the fence and does not require players to enter private property, and it's pretty far away from the actual house to be considered a "homespot" (disclosure - I live a good few miles away from there and have plenty of existing spots within 5 minute walk, so not trying to rig it in my favor)
b. you won't get any sidewalk ever in rural areas; I'm using that road to run several times a week and see people walking there quite often.
That's exactly why I'm asking in this thread, as it started as discussion on rules applicable to rural areas.
A. Fences do not always mark a property boundary and cannot be used to judge where the property line is.
B. Neither Niantic or reviewers are going to know how heavily trafficked a road is and must treat all roads as nonpedestrian areas as a matter of player safety.
C. Having different rules for different area is only going to cause more confusion. You will even have some players asking why a rule for Area X wouldn't also apply to their nomination in Area Y. It simply creates a double standard that is best avoided, even if you thing that double standard is "more fair" for your situation.
Just gonna point out countries already have different rules from other countries. And I do think rural areas should be looked at a bit different when it comes to pedestrian access. I've seen several places where the road is literally at the front door of the house, there is no pavement, and these were in villages
Here's a photo of the object, and from what I can see it is clearly inside the "property line". The argument that "it does not require players to enter the property" is essentially the same as "but I can see the spot from the sidewalk". It does not matter, if the nomination is on PRP then it is a 1* "auto-rejection" no matter what.
I get the sentiment (although in Ireland land registry is non-conclusive, and if you look at the registry map it will have the line go along the centre of the road). Not going to argue as that's not my area of expertise - if anyone here by chance has additional insight on how this works legally, I will take the opportunity to learn.
Yeah, the current wayspot concept and the gameplay mechanisms are rigged pretty heavily against rural players. I try to be as lenient as I can in areas with nothing there, but offhand this looks like a tough sell. Is that secondary road a driveway from that point onward? Or just part of a more scenic drive? In this case, it's rural, so I'm not concerned about the pedestrian aspect. It's accessible. I'd be focusing on the PRP aspect. Of course, you get other people focusing on other things.
You can try beefing up whatever history you have on the well. Submit without an upgrade if you can and just let it sit. Up to you how much time you want to keep spending on it.
Yeah, more or less a driveway, going on for about 60m towards the house - with a clear gate installed to designate private grounds limit. Again, not sure about legal side of it, but in Ireland these pockets before the gate are considered fair game if you need to make a U-turn or like - no one's gonna **** ye if you do that or just hang out without entering :)
Not sure how this would be interpreted outside of the states, but if you were standing next to this well it would not be considered on trespassing and clearly this is outside the fenced area. If you were inside the gate, then yes you would be trespassing but if you pulled off the side of the road here you would not be considered trespassing. Pedestrian Access is likely not accurate. There are multiple buildings on the property so not sure the Single Family Private Residence rational is accurate either, but an argument exists for private farm.
I have two seperate issues with this submission. The first is if you click around the street view you can see a photo from July 2011 where the well clearly does not exist. I would questions how "historic" this well is. Decorative yes, but historic no. Which leads me to the larger issue... what criteria would this fall under? Its not a place to exercise, or explore. If it had been a historic well that had been there for travelers for a 100 years I would buy the case that it is a place to socialize with your fellow neighbors, farmers, or travelers but its less then 10 years old.
I would simply have marked this as Does not meet acceptance criteria.
Its a tough break for rural players, agreed. I deal with this constantly where I live. Sadly, this simply does not pass the basic test for acceptance and it has enough other things working against it that it will get rejected for more inaccurate reasons as well.
To me, that last image is pretty convincing. It's not the same as a city house right on a sidewalk, the well is outside not only a fence, but a gate, which tells me that's where the property line ends. A fence in rural areas is meant to literally mark property boundaries, not just keep people out of a yard that technically might go up to or beyond a sidewalk. In rural areas, I interpret the pedestrian rule to mean whatever is normal pedestrian movement for that area, which is typically along the edges of roads. Plus, it's already been established that wide grassy or gravel non-road spaces count as safe pedestrian access, which this has.
As far as it not being 100 years old ... I wouldn't care. It's a rural area, so I'm going to be more lenient. Plus, it doesn't really have to be. If it's a literal point of interest, something unique that stands out from the surroundings for the type of location it's in (rural area with not much else around), it at least meets the exploration criteria.
Sure it's not perfect, but it's not like it's a big deal? It's not close enough to anything to be a couch stop. It's on a road, which benefits all the other walkers, not just the house. Nobody will lose anything from the existence of the POI, and it could ultimately benefit a lot of rural people who have nothing else. I think it's passable enough to work, and I think I would approve something like this.
But yeah, this is going to be hard just because of all just justifications you will get for it not being acceptable. Ultimately, it just comes down to individual opinion, and there's not one right approach to these. You're probably going to have to keep trying to find that sympathetic crowd, and use the photos that best make your claim that it's not PRP, and then be careful of making other claims (like historic) if it's not true. You might want to do more research on the story behind it, if you haven't already.
@Oakes1923-PGO , @CipherBlakk-PGO , it may not be considered PRP in the states, but where its placed in the UK would 100% be PRP, when you own a property with a driveway you own the land and drive up to the connection with the pavement (sidewalk) / road .
As there is no pavement here the PRP limit would extend all the way up to the edge of the road.
Luckily, we're not in UK - for about a hundred years now :D
I've made a few inquiries with the older local crowd, seems like the well got actually moved there, or rather rebuilt, as a sort of "rural art" if you may call it that. It was once on the grounds, but current owner thought it would be a nice addition to the roadside (and serve as location marker as well). It's not a functional well/pump, as the whole community has proper water supply now - but reminds of the older days when this kind of manual pumps were the only option aside from plain bucket on a rope.
So yes, just literally "an fun object to see while taking a walk" - somewhat close to definition of a POI :)
I'd lean in on that angle then. Maybe mentioned that a local artist rebuilt the well from an existing historic well, and that it was moved to be accessible to all, that it is functional and meant to use by the public and any passerby.
I'd agree that the access is not the issue but maybe mention that it does not sit on private property.
Best of luck with the nomination.