Long-Term Food Truck marked as "Temporary & Seasonal"
I just recently submitted a local Food Truck as a stop location as its a popular social space for the nightly college crowd.
However, the stop got labelled as "Temporary or Seasonal Display." The food truck in question is a permanent food truck thats been sitting in the parking of a local pub for the past two years or so (recently added to Google restaurants), so it is in fact not temporary. While I mentioned its a long-term food truck in it's description, Im not sure how Id submit this stop again in a way that doesn't get it marked for being temporary.
Would this stop be worth submitting again with a better description (I also believe the supporting photo could be better aswell, I just couldn't get more in the photo without photographing multiple people)? Or would this stop be stuck in a loop of "it's temporary" and people not scrolling further and reading about how its not.
I believe this stop meets two of the three factors for a good stop; Socialization & Exploration, especially for being a local business in the area.
food trucks usually are temporary they can be moved from place to place even if it is in the same place every day it could still be moved at anytime. they don't normally meet the criteria. so it's understandable why people would reject it
If the food truck is permently in that spot, it essentially becomes a restaurant. Which is tough enough to get accepted and you need to ultra focus on Gather or Explore.
My only suggestion in how to prove its always there. Off top of my head you can go back to previous google maps and see if its in same spot. If it was in same spot in say 2020 streetview. Your google restaurant link needs to be more focused if you can scroll down and theres comments from previous years in the same spot, point them out to reviewers in supplemental. If your really keen on it, you might even approach the owners to put something on Google Restaurants that says we have been in this spot every day for 2+ years
I think if you can prove that it hasnt moved in 2 years, people should overlook temporary. Yes it could move tomorrow. But really any business could close tomorrow. Whether its a slam-dunk skating rink, bowling alley, college building, etc it could close. Skating rink gym I could see from my house closed and gym is gone for example. If you can layout some proof, you can make the same case in your supplemental.
That said, let me backtrack. Restaurants themselves are hard sells. Overcoming its ability to move might make it near impossible.
I actually reviewed this one. While I was concerned about permanence, my main issue was that you did not make a case for why this food truck meets any of the Wayfarer acceptance criteria. I rejected under "other rejection criteria."
What about 'popular restaurant'? That's litteraly listed on this page: https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/eligibility
The keyword there is "popular." You need to provide evidence, preferably verifiable evidence, of its popularity, like positive reviews on reliable websites, awards, news articles, or the like. As it is, your description and supporting info don't provide any evidence of its popularity (in fact they don't even claim that it is popular, just that it is locally-owned and has been there a while).
If it is indeed a popular place, then adding this information may help your nomination. Restaurants can still be fairly difficult to get accepted, though, and you have the additional burden of proving that the food truck is permanent, which is likely to be difficult as well.
Yes, but your description and supporting info don't even tell us why you think it meets the category of popular restaurant instead of generic food truck business. What makes this important to the local community? What makes it stand out from other food places in the area? Is it the only place you can grab food in the area? Has it won awards?
It's on the burden of the submitter for proof of claim. You still have to 'sell' the nomination well and can be verified by the reviewers. Whether foodie reviews, awards, or articles is enough proof for eligibility reviewers depends on where you are though.
Keep in mind that this is only eligibility, permanence should also be proven in this case. Cowyn's advice sells the argument well.
But why? For a trailmarker or a pedestrian bridge you don't need to prove that it's special. Yet nearly all of them get approved. Isn't a restaurant always a better POI than a trailmarker?
(FYI: I'm not the original poster of this thread about the foodtruck)
A popular restaurant could probably afford to be a building, not just a trailer.
My mistake, thank you for pointing out you're not the original poster/nominator. I guess I saw two names starting with "Y" and stopped reading. 🙂
I can sympathize with this question. In some sense it's more like when your mother says "I said so". Niantic has made easier standard for those
On a more practical sense different criteria you are going for. Trails (and I guess footbridges) also fit the exercise standard. So its a combo of Explore + Exercise. While restaurants go for Explore + Gather. It's harder to prove gather than exercise. And people have a higher standard with explore for restaurants
Sorry, I've had no caffeine today 😅
I appreciate everyones feedback, and will think about how Id go about providing more evidence of its longevity on the next go around for submitting. Its rather hard to prove the case of "gather" while also making sure that you dont include any people within your photography.
I wanted to highlight this comment in particular because there seems to be some ignorance regardng food trucks. There are plenty of reasons why a restaurant would choose to go the food truck route instead of a building, "not being popular" is not typically a reason for doing that. Food trucks still have to pay either a permit or rent (like Mahoneys to Ziggy's) to use a portion of property to house the truck.
I wouldn’t recommend renominating. Restaurants are difficult enough as it is, a restaurant on wheels… that’s already too many reasons for reviewers to reach for the 1*.
I did not catch that you aren't the submitter too, sorry.
Same as the previous commenters too. Even with little context in your locality, trails and recreational facilities are implied designated for the recreational activity. The restaurants people get food, eat here for sustenance or eat here because ___ isn't immediately apparent. Popularity/Uniqueness/Community-relevance isn't implied so context needed.
Well it is a trailer with a restaurant built on top of it. There is nothing really permanent about it. It can be moved at anytime regardless how long its been sitting there.
I really dislike this train of thought.
Any business nomination isn't permenant and could close.
Any artwork nominated could be replaced/moved
If someone can prove to me that something has been there without moving for over a year, I won't use "Temporary", if it gets moved/closed later submit a removal (or update if replaced by another eligible) request
I assume the evidence of long-term use can be applied to most eligible objects based on the criteria challenge. Highlighted there are cases for mounted art, picnic tables, and permanent displays.
I hear what you're saying, but trailers really are different, IMO. It takes a lot of effort to move a business from one building to another. A trailer literally has wheels and is *designed* to be mobile. This one probably has been here for a long time. But proving that is an uphill battle and should be, IMO.
I'm not saying it won't be hard to prove. I suggested earlier years old google maps or posts on the web that say its there forever.
I'm saying ONCE proven its been there for a year+, it's no longer "Termporary" in my book. Not that it's still not easier to move than a business, but rather any business or anything is temporary.
Just from PGO Gyms that I pass by daily, I've seen 2 Murals taken out of game, because the business closed. 1 Roller Skating Rink. 1 Bowling Alley, 1 College (though the person who reported that one I'd like to yell at since the college became a church and person could have just updated). All easy accepts. All ended up "Temporary" because of closure.
If Food Truck hasn't moved in over a year in my book, it's not temporary. If it does move, report it as a taken out wayspot for removal.
If it’s on wheels, it’s “highly unlikely to be permanent,” which is Niantic’s definition of a 1* - temporary rejection.
There is a difference between a building and a tailor. This person could easly decide to move to a different spot to setup shop. A business that goes out still has a building there. Personally I am not a fan of spins of businesses themselves. As you stated any business could go out, but you have to reconise that something that mobile isn't something suited to be more permanent.
I don't think you are quite get the point that I am **** for. Yes: Something that could be mobile isn't as suited to be permenant.
I never said it was easy to prove a food truck had a permenent home, BUT if you could prove via say a website it had that showed it was in the same place for years OR years old google maps updates... Then the fact that it COULD move when it HASNT MOVED for a minimum of year+ implies to me that it is permenant, or at least as permenant as any business.
PS: It's funny your business example. I once posted a thread in general forum I can't find anymore. A local Hooter's restaurant closed and it had a mural outside. The mural was the POI and in Pokmon Go was a gym. When the restaurant closed, someone reported it, it was removed from the game even though the actual POI still existed and was still accessible. Most people thought the mural should have been left, but that it wasn't worth appealing as a new owner could repaint. Well the new owner of the property, tore the whole building down, and it's a fenced off construction site. So even the building was "Temporary"
Nothing made of atoms is completely permanent. Even mountains crumble, seas move, and stars go supernova. But ‘completely permanent’ is not the standard. In Wayfarer, “temporary” is defined as “highly unlikely to be permanent.” A building is not “highly unlikely to be permanent.” A building is likely to stay for a while. A mural that belonged to a business that since closed actually is “highly unlikely to be permanent.” And a food truck on wheels is the most “highly unlikely to be permanent” subject in this thread. If the owners want it permanent, they can take off the wheels and build a foundation around it; the fact that they haven’t done so is reasonably indicative of an intention to move it.
I don't disagree with your statement. I disagree with the judgement call of "Highly unlikely". for me a year passes that standard, for you it doesnt. As you correctly pointed out the standard is not "Completely Permanent" but what you didn't acknowledge is the standard isn't "Possibly not Permanent" or even "Unlikely" to be permenant either. Its HIGHLY unlikely.
So I repeat my original point. If original submitter can prove it hasn't moved for over a year and wants to resubmit with proof. It's still a long shot to pass. But IF the proof is solid enough, and he gets enough reviewers like me rather than reviewers like you the submitter might get lucky. On the otherhand, if the submitter wants to play the odds, since restaurants are hard in general + reviewers like you exist, the original submitter should give up and look for something else to submit.
Is that assessment really wrong?