Swimming Pool Question

Does it matter if the pool is covered or uncovered for a photo? I have a pool here in my community but it’s now covered as I started back up nominating too late.

Are covered pools rejected or are they still eligible? I can always add a new photo later. I mean, by the time it’s approved, it will be Summer anyway.

Comments

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 447 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Put yourself in the reviewer’s position. If you saw a nomination with a covered pool, would you vote to accept, or would you expect that a swimming pool nomination would feature visible water? To my knowledge there’s no rule on this, but getting approval requires getting through the opinions of the voters.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is there no bath house or entry gate?

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Also keep in mind, residentially-focused pools are not eligible. If a reviewer sees a covered pool, they might immediately draw the association to an apartment or HOA pool and reject. A sign or focusing on the entrance might be better, or focusing on other pool amenities such as covered shelters, diving boards, or slide. The amenities depend on how the area looks and how good of photos you can get.

    We had a pool pass, locally, that was covered. The cover is nice enough looking and I honestly don't mind the photo.

  • ZeIdaSymphony-PGOZeIdaSymphony-PGO Posts: 56 ✭✭
    edited November 19

    I actually would be bothered by the cover, but the pool is open to anyone if you know someone who lives there. But a mile up the road from me is a private country club that has a pool that is a POI and it's less public than the one here.

    If the neighborhood here has a photo on their website of the specific pool I asked about in my main post, does that violate the rules? They took the photo, if it exists, without people there, and it would be during the ideal weather and cleanliness of the pool area.

    Actually, I found the exact picture:

    I should be able to use this one actually:

    "Photo includes one or more of emojis, tags, or personally identifiable information such as codenames, personal names or initials, or addresses; copyrighted material or watermarks, including screenshots of someone else's photo; is obviously doctored; includes people, body parts, or live animals as the subject matter; is blurry, over/under exposed, taken inside a car, contains a watermark, or is improperly oriented."

    By that, I can use the official photo of it as it will represent the official location. That's actually the spot I would have taken the photo from if I had timed it pre winter.

  • MelodyS1988-PGOMelodyS1988-PGO Posts: 126 ✭✭✭

    You can not use a 3rd party photo.

  • ZeIdaSymphony-PGOZeIdaSymphony-PGO Posts: 56 ✭✭

    It’s technically not a 3rd party photo. It is the photo of the pool that I would be submitting and it is in fact the same location where I would be standing with my back against the fence to get the full view. I also quoted the exact wording from Niantic and it does not violate that.

    The pool is run by whatever group that runs it. It’s their photo, so the wayspot would also be theirs as they could request its removal as some businesses or groups do.

    A 3rd party photo is more of using a random photo online to create a fake nomination. That is why that general statement is made. However, this photo is the photo of the physical location that he wayspot would be representing. I could have my grandma take the photo for me, send it to me, and use that, and that would also be considered a 3rd party photo, but it is still of that specific location at the specific gps coordinates, so this I believe is the exception.

    In fact, they have photos of the nearby fitness stations also on the website, and those photos are at better angles than when I took them. Plus, the signs now reflect what’s in front of them, so you can see a bit of the photographer in the current wayspots’ images.

    If a Niantic staff member wanted to weigh in on this, that would be great. But as it stands, that photo is of the pool that I have nominated yet. It is not of any other pool. The neighborhood website confirms it to be at the location I’d be submitting from. It has no watermarks or anything, and if they use that photo on their website to represent the pool, then they would want a photo of equal quality to represent the wayspot that represents that pool.

    Also, if they nominated it themselves, they’d have used that photo anyway as it was already in their phone.

  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    Actually its very clearly written that you can't use copyrighted photos. See link to the published help page. Don't see any copyright info on this photo. Submit away!


  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭

    Not how copyright works. Been in publishing for 2 decades. The © matters.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 841 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 19

    Edit: thought better of this comment, but needless to say @Oakes1923-PGO 's atatement is not at all how I understand copyright law to work.

  • MelodyS1988-PGOMelodyS1988-PGO Posts: 126 ✭✭✭

    Are you the party that took the photo? You are not. That is the definition of a 3rd party photo as you (the first party) did not take it. The fact that it is online makes it more likely that you will get caught.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 447 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Copyright arguments are only a tangent. The core discussion in this case is Niantic policy, which is that any picture you did not take for the purpose of the POI nomination is ineligible. They require original imagery, end of discussion.

  • JSteve0-INGJSteve0-ING Posts: 440 ✭✭✭✭

    Actually the photo discussion is a red herring as the pool likely isn't eligible in the first place.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I actually would be bothered by the cover, but the pool is open to anyone if you know someone who lives there.

    Even if it's open to anyone with a friend who lives there, if it's part of a condo, HOA, apartment, or similar it's considered ineligible by Niantic.

    But a mile up the road from me is a private country club that has a pool that is a POI and it's less public than the one here.

    Even being private (less public than the one you want to nominate) doesn't invalidate it. Limited access or places that have a pay gate do not make a place or object ineligible.

    To the best of my recollection, the only object categorically ineligible based on location are pools on residential focused locations, per current published guidelines.

    Based on the rest of the convo, it sounds like you are really trying to lawyer your way into them being acceptable or your third party photo technically being not copywrite, and you may be with the best of intent, but I don't think this is a place your interpretation matches what Niantic may have been less than clear on.

  • Cowyn2016-PGOCowyn2016-PGO Posts: 101 ✭✭✭

    As someone who tried to get a pool submission through recently, and will try it again soon. I believe pools are eligible. However, Niantic used unique wording to muddy up the situation.

    With the criteria refresh, how has that change affected how reviewers should consider swimming pools? 

    • Similar to before the criteria refresh, swimming pools at private residences or hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible. Other than that, pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more.


    The issue is the (or other similiar residentially-focused locations) does that apply to multi-family dwellings like Apartment Complex.???

    My instinct/Logic = No. Because of the Same AMA

    • The considerations when looking at private residential property have not changed with the criteria refresh. Considering that multi-family residences like apartment complexes can have publicly accessible amenities (like playground equipment), these could still be eligible as long as they meet all of the acceptance criteria. Nominations that appear to be within 40m of private, single-family residential property should be very closely reviewed to make sure they are not on private residential property, and that they are accessible from locations not on private residential property.


    Publically accessible amenities would include the swimming pool. In fact, where on an an Apartment ad would you see a pool listed????? In category listed amentities..... It surely wouldn't be treated differently than the playground equipment that is allowed at an apartment


    Granted its not 100% clear. But any other interpretation would require faulty logic.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Similar to before the criteria refresh, swimming pools at private residences or hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible. 

    Additionally:

    I do wish they'd actually follow through and consolidate all of these clarifications, especially ones like this that took place after the criteria refresh.

  • Cowyn2016-PGOCowyn2016-PGO Posts: 101 ✭✭✭
    edited November 20

    Thanks, @Gendgi-PGO  like I said calling apartment swimming pools unacceptable but the apartment play structure acceptable = faulty logic...

    But although I was correct... it DOES require faulty logic.... or Niantic's words "tricky"... (now that's tricky way to explain away inconsistencies...) They called apartment pools an exception and expressly banned it. Which is their right to use faulty logic as an exception as they see fit.

    Since they expressly acknowledged them as ineligible, I won't bother to resubmit. But without said clarification, I would have never known that :<


    PS they dont even need to consolidate all of these clarifications as much as they just need to go back and edit the AMA. Change the phrase or other similar residentially-focused locations --- or other similar residentially-focused locations such as Apartment Complexes or other multi-family dwellings. This is a specific exception to how to handle way spots at such places.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It may be debatable as to if rejection text is useable for rejections, but:


  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Agreed, kind of. I dislike their stance, and they've never clarified why (despite literally "why?" having been an AMA question in the past, but I'm not sure it's fair to say it's faulty logic, when it's their decision. It is counter their aforementioned stance on 3.1 going away from categorical (in)eligibility and more inclusive based on the core criteria.

    Didn't mean to rain on your pool party. I think most people still find pergolas and similar gathering locations poolside to be eligible.

  • Cowyn2016-PGOCowyn2016-PGO Posts: 101 ✭✭✭

    @Gendgi-PGO 

    Inconsistent Logic might be a better phrase, but I still prefer Faulty Logic. To me the difference is in when the inconsistency actually implies the opposite answer should be true now it becomes faulty logic. And since playstructures/perogas/ pavillions/mailboxes/artwork inside Apartment Complex's are all acceptible the clear implication would be an appartment pool is acceptible. Moot point, considering it's their game and they can make faulty (or if you really want to be kinder inconsistent) rules as they see fit :>

  • ZeIdaSymphony-PGOZeIdaSymphony-PGO Posts: 56 ✭✭

    I had a feeling so I did attempt to submit it just to the photo part, but it’s the wrong file type. Luckily, I’m friends with the groundskeeper so I was able to get the shot of the pool that I wanted, and I took it from the same angle. But then I forgot to get the surrounding area shot while it was still uncovered and so the supporting photo is covered. 😫

Sign In or Register to comment.