Things and places sometimes being too common/mass-produced to get accepted
I think objects and places should never be rejected because of them being too common/mass-produced, because playgrounds could be considered common/mass-produced, in my opinion. They already get accepted a lot because I think everyone understands why they are good wayspots. By a lot and not always, I mean the submitters of the playgrounds might break a rejection criteria where the reviewers have the right to reject the nomination because of the rejection criteria being broken.
I think the playgrounds can be considered mass-produced, if I understand what mass-produced means. I believe mass-produced means: Objects that are located at many places around the world.
Reviewers could still use the 'other rejection criteria' if they either think a nomination is not interesting enough, it doesn't meet any of the three criterias or the nomination breaks other rejection criteras, such as copy-pasting text from other sources on the internet to the description, for example.
Reviewers should never consider how common something is, if it should get accepted or not that way. Playgrounds are already common, yet positive wayspots because they encourage exercise and social life.
I don't know if anyone else has posted a discussion post about this topic before me. I don't feel like checking if anyone else has, so please forgive me. 😅
There are three main categories under which something can qualify: explore, socialize, exercise. Imho, "mass produced" and "generic" are only relevant for the explore category. A playground that looks like any other playground doesn't make it a worse place to exercise or socialize. A statue that anyone can buy at the local landscaping store does make it a worse place to explore because why would you go out of your way to visit?
Does 'imho' stand for 'in my honest opinion'? Just double checking.
My thought with my discussion post here is: Most playgrounds should get accepted, even if they are mass-produced, which I think they are. Reviewers should never consider how common something is when rating the object/place to get it accepted or not, since a lot of things and places that are common encourage at least one of the three criteras and get accepted. Should most of the times be the same with playgrounds.
Hard disagree, based on both personal opinion and Niantic Criteria.
Mass-produced subjects are patently uninteresting, overtly losing the “I” in POI. A “point of disinterest” is not an eligible Waypoint.
Rejection criteria specifically says generic subjects should be rejected:
Additionally, Niantic’s post-criteria follow-up rule of thumb is ‘Is this something you would take an out-of-town visitor to see?’ If they can see the same thing in their town, then I would not take them to see it, ergo it should be excluded.
I don't know if it's true, but I'm confident most playground gets accepted, even if they are 'points of disinterest' which I believe they are. I believe they are enough common to not be considered a point of interest, but a point of disinterest since you probably don't need to travel out-of-town to find a playground because one might be close to you.
I would say more, but my brain as I'm posting this reply feels too empty to think.
Playgrounds are already breaking the rejection criteria of being mass-produced since they are so common in the world. That can be a reason why you should not need to consider how common something is. Not all accepted wayspots appear in all Niantic games anyway, so it should be fine.
The guideline of "visually unique and not mass produced" generally does not apply to nominations that meet the "great place to exercise" criterion. For example, all tennis courts are very similar (though they may have different surfacing materials), and this is by design - tennis courts have to follow strict measurements on boundary lines, court size, and net height. Nonetheless, tennis courts are still a great place to exercise.
I think there is one case where a "playground set" may be mass-produced: if it's one of those prefabricated sets sold at home improvement stores (Lowe's, Menards, Maestro, etc) meant for backyard use, usually two swings and a slide on a wooden frame. However, while park playgrounds are a commonly seen entity, there is great variability between them. They can be vastly different sizes, have different configurations of components (slides, swings, bars, tunnels, forts, etc), be made of different materials (metal, wood, recycled plastic), have different types of ground (mulch, synthetic turf, etc). And even if they didn't have these differences, because they meet the exercise criterion, they don't have to be each unique.
Here is an all-natural playground in my city:
And here is the Taylor Swift playground in Hendersonville, Tennessee:
You can see how different these two are. Now, these may be two remarkable examples among playgrounds, but they are much different from something that is truly mass-produced in a factory. You may have no interest in a playground (trust me, I'm not a kid and I don't have any kids, so I don't either), but they make good gathering places for people with small children. If your sibling and nephew were coming to visit your town, it's very reasonable that you all would go to a playground to exercise and socialize. On the other hand, no one would go to visit a road sign or housing development sign. All stop signs, for example, are made in a factory and look exactly the same throughout the country. (I'm sure there are some exceptions in some countries, but even so, you would not go to explore or exercise at the stop sign.)
I hope this was able to explain some. Above all, Niantic has confirmed that playgrounds are eligible and a good place to exercise (and socialize, if I remember correctly), so we should continue accepting them if they don't meet any rejection criteria (for example, on school grounds or private single-family property).
So this is where all the bollards in front of Target are coming from. And sewer covers, gas line markers, cell phone towers, armies of $40 St Francis statues, and benches that are $120 at Lowes.
The mass-produced exclusion doesn't apply to the exercise criteria. You would take an out-of-town-visitor-with-kids to a playground, or an out-of-town-visitor-hiking-enthusiast to a trail.
I think anyone who argues that a playground or tennis court is "mass produced" is really missing the point.
When Niantic had more photos embedded in the criteria page, the "mass produced" section had bollards and street signs, images below. I think too many people took "mass produced" too far to include anything that appears to not be truly "one of a kind."
Have you written that much before here? Just curious. 😂
Playgrounds may be different with a few details, but they are still playgrounds and I am considering them being too common. They should still be accepted tho because they meet at least one of the three criterias.
Because they are mass-produced, I don't consider how common something is when reviewing, because I almost always see existing wayspots nearby each nomination I review that are playgrounds.
For whoever disliked my comment there, it's hard for me to explain exactly what I mean there. I don't exactly mean they are 'points of disinterests'. It's too difficult for me to explain that.
Yes, just look at my post history. Not always, but I tend to be long-winded, giving multiple examples, such as my past threads on street sign spam and use of a fisheye lens for main photos (lol). Stay tuned for my upcoming thread on the general discussion. 🤣
In this case, I mean "humble" opinion, but it can also mean "honest". I just like to clarify when I'm giving my own thoughts as opposed to referring to some Niantic statement or general forum concensus.
If Playgrounds end up getting refused because all of the various bits of playground equipment are "mass produced", what's that going to do to all the nominations for the "identical, mass produced trail markers" that appear every 50m down some trails........
If Niantic were to remove all wayspots that could be considered mass-produced, then most players would most likely not be so happy with that decision. They just can't do that, getting rid of that because they could lose a lot of players.