It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Niantic used the circular reasoning that trail markers are eligible as Wayspots because being Wayspots encourages people to exercise.
The problem is that this very same circular reasoning can be applied to anything along a walking path, including sidewalks. It is why I prefer reasoning that is based on an identifiable and definable section of a trail. That of course means that not every trail marker will be eligible.
Wayspots encourages people to exercise.
Have they not seen all the home PokéStop begs in Supporting Information? 😆
Yeah, definitely not "interesting", but once they're in the game Niantic won't remove them. As a result, more locals will see them, assume it's what Niantic wants, and submit similarly generic bridges. It's a losing battle because Niantic doesn't care so best path for mental health is to not stress about them. You can still decline them unless you're worried about your rating, in which case you can skip.
One thing, that is totally neglected int his discussion until this point:
The eligibility of footbridges as Footbridges as part of named trails is even older than this single forum comment. It was part of an older AMA, October 2019:
Q43: There was a recent debate on reddit about “Bridges” being portal candidates. Regular car bridges clearly should not be portals, however what about wooden walking trail bridges throughout a park or nature preserve on the trail/path?
A43: The answer from NIA OPS is, “If they are accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of the trail, they would meet criteria.”
source: https://ingressama.com/search?q=bridge (there is also a thread in this forum, that collects very old statements)
The AMA answers are more reliable than forum comments of single staff members, that can be ambiguous or subjective, because here more than one person is involved in answering them. Officially the old statements are outdated, but nowadays forum comments follow these guidelines.
For fulfilling the exercising criterion a noteworthy and somehow proven recreational trail shoud be given to be acceptible.
That bridges can be eligible under other criteria (being historic or architectural important) is a different criterion and not part of the question, but I want it mentioned.
I understand why it has been as it’s older criteria, but I understand bringing it up.
As @JillJilyJabadoo-PGO points out Niantic won’t remove Wayspots that don’t meet criteria any more (see also #MissionForGood charity shops) so we end up with more garbage with the justification of “plenty of these exists in game”.
There is no circular logic. That you see this logic there, shows only, that you dislike some wayspot categories or the exercising criterion. This kind of logic can be applied to everything. Hiking tours are exercising even without wayspots there.... the wayspot is then only the incentive for the players - so you create only a pseudo-argument on you peronal oppinion.
Same logic for a museum: it provides exploration. If you think it's boring and not worth to be explored, than you can say the same way, that only the wayspot makes it worth for exploration. But the criteria clearly define: noteworthy museum -> exploration-criterion: check.
This is only a logic, that allows you to lever out whatever Niantic rule you dislike. Very poor.
Last but not least: the exercising criterion and especially the hiking trail marker discussions are very hard ones to deal with for Niantic staff. There are lots of differences between different countries: style of trail markers, single paths vs path networks, etc.pp.
So especially this is a topic, where people should never deal in absolutes, only sith do that. What could be in country A a right decision might be wrong in country B ....
I just don’t understand why so many people feel the need to set the standards so high for a nomination that they’re almost unachievable. It must be a beautiful ornate bridge, flawless photo taken by a professional, capitalize each word, explain the historical significance of the bridge and which Olympic athlete crossed it.
There are lots of examples from older AMAs, that have still value. For example the old statement about restricted accessible company ground: there was said, that restricted access is no reason for rejecting because of pedestrian access. This old ING-AMA statement was 1:1 revived in an actual valid wayfarer-AMA.
So similar to that: if forum staff comments follow old statements, then I see them as still valid. Not enough to justify decisions only based on them, but enough for being an argument in discussions like this one.
Btw: appeals using this old statement also work. A friend of mine appealed these two biking trail bridges successfully quoting this old AMA:
Yeah, why should anybody have any standards? If there’s a nomination, just accept it! No reason to expect a nominator to try to tell the story of a location, or do any research, or communicate the value of a particular spot to the community, or have an image that represents the real world location, or spell anything correctly, or get the pin in the right spot, or any of that other nitpicky nonsense!
Sorry to hear you do crappy subs. 🤷
stOP PrEVEnTiNG pLAYERs FroM GETTIng more StOPs! fivE STaR EvErytHing!
Admittedly I do t know the context of crappy subs, but some people on here do have massively high standards to the point they will ignore what niantic says as "they don't know what they're talking about"
Relying on niantic comments which are often taken out of context, old, or just anomalies (dog waste station lol) causes so many issues on this forum and leads to eternal threads where people endlessly argue over the validity of settled questions in the hope that niantic swoops in and gives a poorly worded ruling they can point to. The bizarre refusal to just centralize, edit, and update these rulings has driven the level of discourse on the forum into the ground.
Is that the most recent mention of footbridges in the AMA series?
Most of the bridges and footbridges I review are the latter.
I always get the impression that the contributor is posting forcibly.
The supplementary explanation is unsightly every time.
It is a cryptic theory invented by a Pokémon GO player in Japan and written on the 5chBBS, Japan's largest general internet bbs.
It took over a year for Giffard to admonish this curious theory, but I am surprised that anyone still believes it.
I call it an abuse of eligibility requirements.
We should follow the common sense of the real world, not the quibbles of the game screen.
In the real world, we do not interact on pedestrian bridges.
I agree with your opinion.
I think there are 5ch insiders among the reviewers.
This is the first time I heard about 5ch.
Originally called 2ch, the BBS was created in Japan around 1999, taking over some of the BBSs that had existed until then.
Well, the number of users has decreased as the rights holders have shifted, but it still exists, and there are probably still threads about Wayfarer on it.
I don't know if 5chBBS can be accessed from outside Japan, but I have a feeling that it was blocked before because of spam from overseas.