Nomination and review decisions when multiple identical objects are separated by a certain distance

tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 390 ✭✭✭✭

@NianticGiffard @NianticVK @NianticTintino @Danbocat-PGO

The question of clarification of this criterion seems to have been left behind by the wayfarer team during the Christmas holidays, so I will rewrite the text and ask the question.

I was reviewing wayspot nominations the other day and found a nomination that I was unsure about reviewing.

I have seen similar nominations in the past, and I would like to confirm what criteria I should use to make a decision.

I thought it would be difficult to understand just by explaining it in words, so I made a conceptual diagram.

First, take a look at Figure 1. This time, I used Pokémon. But this is a concept. Think of it as the exact same object.

The only difference here is the location where they are placed.

In other words, there are several identical objects placed.


Suppose there are several candidates along the path.

If there is no sole one, it is a quality nomination that should be approved.

If you check along this road, you will see that there is a different candidate every 50 meters, some of which have already been approved as wayspots.

And if you look closely, you can see that they are regularly aligned.

Let's say that these exact same objects are 250m apart from each other.

In this case, how should we make a decision?

(1) They should be judged separately as different spots even if they have the same design.

(2) Even if they are some distance apart, they will be judged as duplicates.

(3) Rejected as a mass-produced product.

In addition, there is a reason for "duplication" in the reason for application for deletion, and I would like to know if such a case falls under deletion as "duplication".

Next, let's take a look at Figure 2.

Think of it as a diagram of a city.

Figure 2

Suppose there are several candidates and existing way spots with the same pattern, but in different locations, in the middle of an intersection or street in the city.

This is another candidate for quality that will be approved if there are no more identical ones.

The city block is assumed to be 100m x 200m.

In this case, what decision should be made?

(1) Examine each spot separately as different spots even if they have the same design.

(2) Examine them as duplicates even if they are some distance apart.

(3) Rejected as a mass-produced product.

In this case as well, there is a reason for "duplication" in the reason for deletion request, but I would like to know if such a case is considered as "duplication" for deletion.

In my opinion, it should be judged as (2) or (3), and even if existing waypoints are not deleted, many of them should be considered duplicates, but please let us know your opinion.


  • Oakes1923-PGOOakes1923-PGO Posts: 379 ✭✭✭✭

    Even in your example it all depends on the context. Your using pokemon here but its never that simple, instead lets use real world examples.

    Are the nominations part of a city outdoor art exhibit?

    Are we talking about athletic fields? Parks with multiples point of interest. Memorial Plaques and benches placed for prominent local figures?

    Is the subject matter a park with multiple pieces of playground equipment?

    Are these trail markers? foot bridges?

    All of the above are viewed differently based on their own context. That is the important piece you are missing in your write up. You are looking for a hard and fast rule to accept/reject things based on proximity and likeness. However the real world subject matter will differ each time based on a huge number of variables.

    While personally I don't want to see six park benches in a row, dedicated to random local residents that happened to have relatives that want to sponsor a bench as Wayspots, in the same breath I wouldn't want to reject a row of benches, monuments, plaques that memorialize the various first responders or civil servants (police/fire/emt/veterans) or famous figures of history just because they happen to be in roughly the same area.

    In my area of the US there are lots of town run sports complexes that have multiple multiuse athletic fields and basketball courts and baseball/softball diamonds, that are often crisscrossed with walking trails for pedestrian access. They are great places to get outside and play games. Why would we want to arbitrarily limit the number of Wayspots to one of each item over several acres?

    I understand the want for a hard and fast rule one way or the other but the reason that its open for interpretation is that each scenario is vastly different, even if there are similarities. I think a real world example of exactly what you are talking about is fairly difficult to find. Devil is in the details.

    Hopefully that is helpful.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 390 ✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    It's true that we can expect different decisions depending on the object.

    In this case, I am assuming that it is a mural, object, plate, etc. that has enough quality to be approved on its own.

    Think of multiple, multiple murals or objects that are exactly the same under certain rules along a bridge parapet or sidewalk.

    I am asking this question here because I have recently seen a number of cases of this type appearing in the screening process with arbitrary titles.

    As an extreme example, let's try to explain this situation in words with a replica of a sculpture.

    Consider that the Pokémon in the figure is a replica of a famous sculptural statue.

    Venus de Milo, Rodin's Thinker, Michelangelo's David, Samothrace's Nike, etc., if this existed alone in a local park or along a street, I think it would deserve approval.

    But imagine if they were regularly lined up every 50 meters, and there were multiple identical sculptures.

    And these have self-explanatory names.

    One would be numbered Venus B, another 200 meters away would be named Venus de Milo, and another 400 meters away would be labeled and approved as a nude statue.

    And consider that at exactly the midpoint of the 200m distance, an unapproved, identical sculptural statue was nominated as "Venus" and came around for review.

    How is it appropriate to review it?

    I think the most appropriate way to handle the confusion would be to treat the nomination as a duplicate, and then leave any one of the multiple statues that have been approved, and delete all the others as duplicates.

    However, I am aware that there are many different opinions in this case.

    So we are checking what the management thinks about this.

Sign In or Register to comment.