It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
It really does feel like that.
The purpose of this thread is for you to whine about the fact that you review according to the guidelines and “reject” base submissions yet they still get approved.
Guess what? That happens to poi’s all over the world. You aren’t special and this post is just a regurgitation of everyone saying the exact same things over and over about poi’s on military bases.
Nope. Niantic must add clarification about this topic to the help pages as promised.
It's actually not "clear cut removal". In the other situations listed there, it needs to actually interfere with the operations to get removed.
They have recently restored a playfield in a industrial plant, for example. They also kept stuff that was close to a parking area of a hospital, and another one that was inside a resting area of another hospital. All these examples show stuff that clearly won't interfere with anything, and certainly there will be many in military bases as well.
Now we have specification saying to reject. so do so! Lets all just move on already 😂
You mean a few posts on the Wayforum that the vast majority of submitters and reviewers never visit or even know exists?
If niantic themselves have not made it part of the criteria for others to see. I don’t see that as an issue that we should worry about if niantic themselves don’t care enough about it to make the change happen. If that makes sense 😂🤷♂️
@NianticDanbocat @NianticTintino @NianticGiffard
Note that this complaint about the disconnect between "eligibility criteria" and "removal criteria" is a longstanding issue that applies to more than just "Military Base" locations, but to ANY ineligible wayspot that still somehow gets approved by the reviewers.
For example, if wayfarer reviewers were to approve a nondescript streetlamp, that met no criteria whatsoever? (ie. not even a permanent artwork painted onto it) In such situations, "NOW the wayspot exists" should not equate to "welp, too bad, it doesn't meet removal criteria, it doesn't matter that the reviewers were not being diligent in their task".
This is already how it works for some OTHER incorrect approvals, such as when playground equipment or baseball diamonds happen to be approved despite being on K-12 school grounds. An incorrectly-approved-by-wayfarer wayspot STILL gets removed quickly, because the location itself was invalid.
Thank you for reiterating it and in better words than I used. This is exactly my frustration. As soon as it becomes apparent this is how the system works, some folks will immediately do whatever it takes to get things approved because as soon as they're in, they're in for good. As with so many other things, it then becomes very easy for the rest of us to wonder why we care more about this than Niantic? What's the point of any of the criteria any more? I'm more or less ok with old stuff being grandfathered in, I understand why Niantic doesn't want to go down that road. But for anything approved in the past year, or by Wayfarers, or even by OPR agents it should be a different matter.
Yeah honestly, as much as I find the ban on military bases unfair (and obviously I think they are and would want them to be acceptable)... the problem I'm having is everyone keeps singling out the military bases...
The discussion should be around this point that @0X00FF00-ING is making, (sure I'm personally gonna be sad that military bases are apparently "unsafe" and ineligible), since there is that disconnect between "eligibility criteria" and "removal criteria". Because the few times this discussion has come up is people complaining and being confused because they see locations on a base, but this also counts for schools, and cemeteries, etc.
I believe the reason why niantic doesnt just give people free reigns to submit removals over poi’s is because of the sheer amount of abuse that will come of it. One thing that gets accepted that may have met criteria at one point n time does not make it have to be removed now. For obvious ones where they wont allow any on k-12 they are great for or for private property. All i see is a lot of grandfathered stops in areas being removed because people dont believe it meets criteria now. I can see it spinning out of control fast. Where does it stop? A bridge, trail markers, survey markers, memorial benches? Could be some great info through supporting to prove eligibility that obviously isnt available now. Hence why if the base commander feels neccessary they can remove stops not the general public
Although a lot of people have been arguing that most nominations regarding military bases are in residential areas, I have been receiving a lot of nominations for military EQUIPMENT. The nominator claims the equipment is decommissioned but I cannot prove those claims and the equipment is located on an active US military base. There are also already approved wayspots in the area of some of that equipment. That seems like a major security issue and I continue to see nomination of this equipment no matter how many times I reject them. I do not see how those stops can be equated to a playground.
I understand that people are upset that residential areas might lose wayspots but clarification needs to be made to prevent military equipment from becoming wayspots. Its very concerning seeing nominations of this equipment almost everyday and its very frustrating constantly having to 1*. I don't understand why this is such a tense issue. I feel like military families should be especially interested in clarifying this criteria because if parents believe that wayspots are only in residential areas, their children could try and access secure areas of the base to access portals or catch pokemon.
To answer your question, they are likely decommission "art" or "museum display" pieces. Because theres TONS of those kinds of things on base. Memorial for someone/something, or full on museums with airplanes on display.
And of course I don't know 100% what you are referring to is actually that, so I am in agreement that you should 1* those, since you don't know. It is VERY unlikely they are a "security issue" but again, on the safe side sure, 1* those.
But yeah, a playground? A Footbridge? A Tennis Court? I don't know how anyone could have any problems with those...
Unpopular opinion: The only way we're gonna get any action is to report here all the ineligible nominations we review so that Niantic can take action against those with history of "spamming ineligible nominations".
Both of these are... ineligible anyways, a Starbucks on base (yes they have basically shopping malls with foodcourts on base as well as Starbucks and Burger Kings) and then the classic (what seems to be) small child trying to get a pokestop at their house?
This one would be eligible... but since it's on a military base it's abuse apparently. 🙄
Not abuse, just ineligible. Unless the nomination has been submitted multiple times before.
Okay, that makes sense. So wrong word on my part.
Just yeah, those first two are trash anyways, but the pavilion would be eligible but its on a military base... so it's ineligible, which is sad.
If you see a piece of military equipment and its on a cement pad in the middle of grass. I can almost guarantee its decommissioned. The military doesnt just leave things like tanks, artillery guns, planes, etc sitting out in public areas like that. They’d be locked up in a compound. Just an fyi
There's no indication that the offense has to be of the same waypoint...
Nominations submitted by accounts with a history of spamming inappropriate nominations
If we believe you are spamming nominations inappropriately, you will receive a warning and may lose nomination privileges for repeat offenses.
yeah thanks, still intentionally missing the point.
this is just stuff reviewed in the past month.
These are all in the same area of the dog park tire sculpture.
I'm intentionally missing the point? No, the first two are coal ineligible anyways, and the 3rd is only ineligible because it's on a military base.
So yes, they are all "ineligible", but my point is, the third one should be eligible, because if there was some opportunity to change the unfair military base rule, non-operational/residential/recreational areas should be eligible.
So I guess y'all want a complete geo-block ban of nominations on military property because you're upset that a few slip through the cracks and get approved (which happens all over the world not just military bases) and you lose that 1% towards an upgrade? I don't understand this shift in the thread to becoming that "want house/couch stops" doxing thread that we had shut down.
I guess the apps should just pop up and say "You're on a military base, you're banned from playing this or submitting here" Im sure that would go over sooooo well with the military community.
Okay, so here's my parting thoughts on this, because this whole thing is driving my blood pressure up too high.
My initial inquiry thread about this "issue" had people trying to argue with me that military bases are "unsafe" "warzones" "treasonous to take pictures or GPS use" etc etc. Which is where this all kinda circles around too, with the whole "unsafe obstruct emergency services" rejections reason
Then it has multiple times turned into what I feel like is an attack on the existing waypoints because they are "grandfathered" in, and apparently are giving reviewers the wrong impressions, which has lead to some getting approved which is not giving people their 1% more towards an upgrade which is apparently hurting people feelings?
I'm fine if we want to have an all out conversation on the rejection vs eligibility criteria and the impact of grandfathered waypoints, but when it becomes just singling out on military bases that drives me nuts.
What's worse is (and I know, this sounds like I'm that kid on reddit who says their uncle or their friends cousin works at Nintendo and they got a leak of the new Smash Bros character or something...) my father was a commander, was a high ranking military official, and I know this "issue" wasn't an issue and I know that if he was around now I'm sure I could get some movement on getting at LEAST the residential/recreational areas of USAF/USSF bases unbanned... But he unexpectedly passed away last year... So I guess the ship has sailed. It's just one of those many unanswered questions that I will never get any resolution to.
I'll just leave it at that. Look, everyone, we can agree to disagree. I really hate the ban on military bases especially since I grew up on bases, spent the last year of my dad's life on base at least twice a week visiting, and I still visit my remaining family on one. I understand SOME of the arguments and why it can be ambiguous. I hope some day at least the residential/recreational areas can be eligible, and if we are going to have the remove grandfathered waypoints argument its not just on military bases, because that is also not cool and unfair to be singling out that community. I guess in the end it IS just a game.
Sorry if this is jumbled, I think out of order a lot and it comes out in writing... And I'm sure I'm missing a lot of points, but hopefully this get's my ideas across...
Come on @NianticTintino @NianticDanbocat please act something, won't you?
Even if Niantic stands with the criteria spoken since 2 years ago, that's before the criteria refresh and @NianticCasey-ING already left this forum, yet there's no mention about this in the criteria page (other than "Obstruct Emergency Services" that is still ambiguous until now).
This thread will become pointless if @NianticGiffard close this thread instead.
which has lead to some getting approved which is not giving people their 1% more towards an upgrade which is apparently hurting people feelings?
Comments like that is what earns you all your disagreements.
yeah, any thing approved within the last 2 years within a geofence that applies to spawns should be removed.
and imagine if you routinely saw nominations you'd rejected on k-12 school grounds in your area get approved. would you be annoyed by this a bit? now imagine further it was entirely because niantic had failed to properly convey some info to reviewers. brushing it off as "hurt feelings over 1%" is disingenuous.
Niantic should update not only the criteria but also the rejection reason. And these should be updated with as little time difference as possible.