Wayspots and Autobahn
Guendinger-PGO
Posts: 13 ✭✭
How would you handle a Wayspot located at a "Autobahn-Rastplatz"/"highway rest area"?
Such a wayspot is likely to be accessed safely by a visitor of the Rastplatz/rest area - but you have to use a car/truck/motocycle to get there at all. In general, Rastplätze/rest areas do not have a footpath for a pedestrian to get there.
Now I take this to the extreme:
Assume there is an acceptable, hence safely accessible, wayspot in England. If you are in France, you would have to use a boat or a train to get to England since there is no bridge from France to England and the tunnel is not suited for pedestrians. Once you get to the British island, you can access said wayspot safely. But no one will doubt that this wayspot is acceptable.
Where do I draw the line regarding the requirement "safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians"?
Comments
I think those are fine. The pedestrian access criterion is asking if somebody can walk up to and touch the object safely (they have previous clarified that overhead murals, etc. are also fine). Driving or taking a boat to a location and then walking up to the PoI is fine.
Examples of things that aren't pedestrian accessible include fountains in the middle of ponds/lakes (where it would be impossible to walk up to them) and monuments in the middle of busy roundabouts that aren't accessible via crosswalk and that can't be parked next to.
I've gotten those kinds of wayspots on the US highway approved before. If you can park a car at a parking lot, and then walk to it, that's considered that safe pedestrian access.
I’m not sure if I’m correct. But it contradicted one of the examples, Bethesda Terrace and Fountain, in the eligibility criteria. As the picture shows, the location of the statue is in the middle of the pond. People can walk around the pond but cannot enter it and touch the statue.
I think the visitors don't need to touch the POI. If people can safely visit it on foot, I think it would be fine. Visiting a POI does not mean touching it. Walking around would be considered as visiting it.
Please let me know if there is any problem.
Pic 1. Bethesda Terrace and Fountain on the eligibility criteria page
Pic 2. Bethesda Terrace and Fountain on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Terrace_and_Fountain
@phi2458-PGO There was a similar discussion very recently. In that one I used the fountains at Trafalgar Square as an example.
In that case, as in the Bethesda Terrace and Fountain, the point of interest is not just the thing in the center that cascades water, but the entirety of the man-made water feature. You can sit on the ledge of the fountain/water feature, which is pretty much the definition of safe pedestrian access. One way to think about this is that almost all decorative fountains have a bowl as one of the components. In this case the bowl for the fountain is wide, but it's still a part of the fountain.
For an example of something that's ineligible I offer you this page of aeration fountains at Lake Merritt in Oakland. There are several photos on that page showing aeration fountains out in the lake itself. Niantic has used things exactly like that as examples of things that are ineligible because they do not have safe pedestrian access.
To go back to @Guendinger-PGO's original question... let's posit a lake with a small island in it. On that island there is something eligible, such as a historical marker or a famous ruin. It's possible to take a canoe or a kayak to that island, and once there walk to the point of interest. That would be considered safe pedestrian access since you could walk up and touch the POI once you landed on the island. I'm aware of one excellent example of that-- Fannette Island in Lake Tahoe. The Fannette Island Teahouse is a famous ruin, and has been a portal in Ingress for as long as I've been playing.
That is not a pond, but the base of the fountain. The fountain isn't just the center piece but also includes the base. And since the base is part of the fountain, players are able to walk up to the fountain and touch or stand next to it.
As a pond has been mentioned, this reminded me of another Wayspot, which was like this one in my hometown https://goo.gl/maps/3faao2dUZWEhZtLw5
In the middle of the pond, there is a pyramid. There are no boats allowed, so no chance to get there legally. Up to now, I thought I would have to reject such Wayspots (because unaccessible), and now I am totally confused. The pyramid can arguably be compared to the aeration fountain (-> rejection) but also to Fanette Island (-> admissible) . Now what???
Can you get to the Pyramid on foot in any way? - No
Are there any permitted methods of getting access to the Pyramid? No - boats are not allowed so there is no potential access to the Pyramid.
1* reject - no pedestrian access.
Hi @Hosette-ING @TheFarix-PGO. Thanks for your insight. But I’m still not clear about the clarification. Do you mind if I ask another question?
As the picture shows, this piece of public art was on the river and very close to the riverbank. People can stand on the riverbank to take a look but cannot touch it. It is a temporary display, so it is ineligible. But assuming that it is permanent, it really hard for me to make a decision. I would like to know what you think about it. Thank you.
Something like that would be ineligible unless there's a plaque with the name of the sculpture or a specially built lookout to admire it on the bridge. Then you can anchor the PoI to those it's, which do have pedestrian access.
You said your self that the exibit was temporary, so whether it has safe pedestrian access is moot. I also don't see the need to answer hypothetical "gotta" question either.
Can you get to the Whale on foot in any way? - No
1* reject - no pedestrian access.
@phi2458-PGO I second what @Lechu1730-PGO said. It would be ineligible even if it was permanent unless there was something pedestrian accessible like a sign. I would approve it if a part of it reached over the top of a pedestrian walkway even if that part was too high in the air to touch-- Niantic has said that the Z axis doesn't matter, as long as you can get to a ground-level position of a thing it's good.
Hi @Lechu1730-PGO @TheFarix-PGO @sogNinjaman-ING @Hosette-ING,
Sorry I didn’t make my question clear. What I mean was that whether it is necessary to touch the POI.
Since we are not welcome to touch some of the POI, it weird to say that we need to touch all of them. A decoration on a ceiling, a statue in the middle of a fountain, and a sculpture surrounded by a fence to prevent visitors from touching it are examples.
There was a similar discussion: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/13972/must-be-safe-and-publicly-accessible-by-pedestrians-roof-top-items
November AMA stated that:
Safe Pedestrian Access denotes the player is able to access the object in question by walking up to it without putting themselves into potential danger. Objects in pedestrian areas, along sidewalks or paths or in parks/fields are great examples of eligible locations. Ineligible examples include objects on roundabouts or in traffic dividers that do not have a sidewalk/pathway leading to it.
If we interpret “access” as “touch”, there would be some contradictions. However, if we consider “access” as “visit”, all of them make sense.
Back to the whale example, I think it is safe to visit it on the bridge. However, touching it is another story. If the clarification stated that we need to touch the POI to make it eligible, I agree the whale is ineligible even if it is permanent. There would be some exceptions like @Hosette-ING mentioned: Z axis issue. But I think it is fine if Niantic made it clear.
Honestly, I’m not a native English speaker. My interpretation was probably wrong. So please let me know if there is any problem. Thank you.
@phi2458-PGO Your English is quite good.
At one point Niantic's statement was that you had to be able to touch the object, but then there was a clarification about things that were overhead.
Although Niantic has never explicitly said this I feel like there's kind of a common sense "close enough." If the closest part of the whale was a meter or less from the bridge I would approve it, but probably not if it was five meters away and definitely not if it was ten meters away. That is my own personal feeling, though, and it's definitely not a rule.
It is very difficult to write rules that are 100% clear and unambiguous. As soon as you think you have it right someone comes up with a weird case that you didn't anticipate. This is why the world is filled with lawyers. (-:
@Hosette-ING I get it. So it seems that it is ineligible according to the clarification.
I think our job is to rate the nomination according to the guideline. As for the weird cases in the rules, we just leave them to Niantic. Niantic is definitely familiar with lawyers. : )