These three stops were rejected. Can anyone help determine why and how to prevent it in the future?

Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭
edited January 31 in Nomination Improvement

The images of 1.1 and 1.2 were rejected as a private residence, however it is a community entrance sign and garden. It is not a private residence. Do I need to explicitly state that people do not live in the stone welcome signs at the entrance to communities or the community flower gardens? The system would not let me appeal this denial.

The images of 2.1 and 2.2 are of a flagpole that was rejected as the flagpole and the description being offensive. One of the items and categories in the system was for a flagpole. The flagpole is right by parking and sidewalks/pathways that lead to a nearby lake with a walking bridge. How do I make a common everyday object throughout most countries inoffensive? The system would not let me appeal this denial.

The images of 3.1 and 3.3 are of the community mailboxes where the rest of the community parking is, which does not require one to cross the road to access it as it abuts a cul-de-sac, and is right next to the community lake and is connected to the pathway around the lake and its bridge by the sidewalk. It is the only public area that offers cover from the rain and people frequently walk to and from there as well as stop and talk there. I did not see what the rejection reason for this one was. Mailbox was also a category to choose in the system. Why was this rejected? This one let me submit an appeal, but, since I didn't see why it was rejected, I don't know if I addressed the cause.

Any help would be appreciated. Any information on how to be able to submit an appeal on the rest or why it won't allow me to at this time would also be appreciated. Thank you.


Post edited by NianticLC on

Comments

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 4,650 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Typically, neighbourhood entrance signs don't meet the eligibility criteria by themselves. Nominations are meant to be a great place to socialise, exercise or explore. You don't really do any of those things at a neighbourhood entrance sign.

    Some particularly artistic ones may be worthy as pieces of art (think along the lines of ones that have sculptures or fountains as part of their designs, as examples), but generally speaking, the majority of them don't meet criteria.

    Likewise for the flagpole and the mail boxes, they're not typically great places to socialise, exercise or explore. I notice you made reference to the categories in the "what is it?" section when asking about the flagpole. This confuses people, as that section is not actually a list of eligible objects. It includes eligible and ineligible things. It's literally just a way of tagging things for the database, and people who submit through Ingress aren't even able to use this section currently, so definitely don't be looking at it as a way of determining what can and can't be submitted.

    When it comes to appealing, once you use an appeal, you have a 30 day cooldown before you can use another appeal, although personally I wouldn't have used an appeal on any of these.

  • dman41689-PGOdman41689-PGO Posts: 289 ✭✭✭

    community signs don't meet the criteria because people don't hang out around them. flag poles are only accepted if they are memorial flag poles

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited January 25

    It is where the community flower garden is and the walkway that goes around the community begins. People walk that path and stop and talk by the garden every day. A flower garden as well as a walking path are a great place to socialize, explore, and exercise. The welcome sign and flower garden is also artistic in nature and unique. Art is subjective. Masonry requires skill, as does the maintenance of a flower garden. The criteria requires a landmark and the path itself is not eligible.

    As to your response regarding the mailbox and flagpole, I provided information regarding these particular locations that detailed how they were utilized as places within the community to socialize, explore, and exercise as well as how they are landmarks. Such was also referenced in my submission. If items are rejected based on generalities and not the circumstances and importance/use to the community within which it resides then what is the point of the sections whereupon extra detail is to be provided and requested? There are numerous locations that I have seen which do not even come as close to meeting the criteria as what was posted above.

    One example: A chicken on a sign at a gas station... Not the gas station itself. Just the chicken on the sign.

    Mile markers. The community doesn't place down signage, so what was submitted are the only landmarks proximal to where the paths begin or are accessible from. Does it need to be on a paint stick to be considered?

    Thank you for the clarification on the one per 30 day appeal limitation. Thank you as well for the information regarding the categories.

    I also appreciate your input on whether you would appeal that which was denied for blatantly false reasons because you don't believe the items generally meet other criteria despite the information provided that indicated the generality does not apply in this particular circumstance.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭

    You say, "No one goes to any of the places you showed us to do any of those things." People in the community, however, do. That you would not does not define or change the reality that people do use art/architecture, community gardens, community mailboxes, and the beginnings of walking/hiking/biking paths with the only nearby permanent landmarks to such being a flagpole, a sign, and mailboxes, especially in rural areas. I've even stated that they are used for such. According to the guideline criteria at https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/eligibility, the following is is contained within each of the sections below:

    A great place for exploration

    "a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance and which makes our communities unique and shapes its identity"

    Examples of Wayspot categories

    • Unique Art or Architecture
    • Community gardens

    A great place for exercise

    A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise.

    Examples of Wayspot categories

    • Gardens
    • Hiking trails
    • Biking trails

    A great place to be social with others

    A favorite gathering place for friends or strangers alike, where you can share a drink or meal, be entertained, or watch public life happen. Or something that draws us together to share an experience in a locally and culturally relevant way.

    Examples of Wayspot categories

    • Pavilions
    • Post Offices
    • Fountains 

    Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area


    Is a mason-work sign, one that is the only one of its kind, not unique, art, and architecture? Is it not a placemark of local importance that shapes its identity? Does the flower garden surrounding and next to it not exemplify "a place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs" (to say nothing of the adjoining walking/biking path that encircles the community which can be said to begin there). Is a flower garden not a garden? (For your reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garden garden : a plot of ground where herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables are cultivated. A picture was included that shows some of the flower garden. It is the flower garden for the community, whether you choose to deny it or not. You can feel free to call the community HOA if you'd like. Please enlighten me as to how you determined that people from the community are not involved in the gardening. Please also note that the criteria that outlines what is eligible states that gardens are eligible and does not require it to be a community garden. As such, whether the community is involved, which you make presumptions regarding and further make statements based on such false and inaccurate presumptions, has no bearing.) Is a stonework sign (surrounded by a flower garden) any different from a fountain beyond its lack of water?

    Are community mailboxes not a destination and placemark of local importance and which makes the community unique and shapes its identity? Most housing in the broader area has individual mailboxes. Is it not a place you'd go to get some fresh air and stretch your legs? Is it not a good place to get some exercise as it connects to a walking/hiking path that goes around a lake with a bridge as well as is on a walking/biking path that goes throughout the community and is one of only two place for parking in the community to access them (the other being by the flagpole)? Is it not a gathering place for friends, neighbors, and strangers alike where people can watch public life happen? Does it not provide a location of shared circumstance that draws us together to share an experience in a locally relevant way? How is a community mail area different from a post office?

    Is a flag pole not a placemark of local interest and importance and which shapes the identity of the community? Is not the positioning/height, orientation, and type as well as origination of any flags that fly not communicative, symbolic, and reflective of the community? Does this not draw people together to share an experience in a locally and culturally relevant way? It is one of only two areas for public parking in the community and adjoins the walking/biking paths that go through the community which have no other landmark than the ones identified above. Are the only accessible public parking areas not a great gathering place for friends to walk these paths or even meet to talk, especially in a rural area?

    All of this also ignores the original reasons given as to why they were rejected as well. How is a flagpole offensive? How is a public flower garden and stonework signage a private residence?

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭

    The community sign was a landmark for multiple things, including the community flower garden, a path that goes around the community, and its own artistic architecture. The walking/biking path doesn't have any mile markers or I would've submitted those instead since those are approved. There are a lot of things I've seen that were approved and are in game that no one hangs around though, even mile markers. In the cases above, however, due to the rural location and limited parking and walking/biking paths in the area, people actually do hang around these things.

    I hadn't heard that about flag poles. Do you know where it outlines that in the criteria? I would be interested in looking at it and it would be good for me to review that section since I don't recall that being outlined (as such I may not recall other items as well). Thank you.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭

    You say, "No one goes to any of the places you showed us to do any of those things." People in the community, however, do. That you would not does not define or change the reality that people do use art/architecture, community gardens, community mailboxes, and the beginnings of walking/hiking/biking paths with the only nearby permanent landmarks to such being a flagpole, a sign, and mailboxes, especially in rural areas. I've even stated that they are used for such. According to the guideline criteria at https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/new/criteria/eligibility, the following is is contained within each of the sections below:

    A great place for exploration

    "a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance and which makes our communities unique and shapes its identity"

    Examples of Wayspot categories

    • Unique Art or Architecture
    • Community gardens

    A great place for exercise

    A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise.

    Examples of Wayspot categories

    • Gardens
    • Hiking trails
    • Biking trails

    A great place to be social with others

    A favorite gathering place for friends or strangers alike, where you can share a drink or meal, be entertained, or watch public life happen. Or something that draws us together to share an experience in a locally and culturally relevant way.

    Examples of Wayspot categories

    • Pavilions
    • Post Offices
    • Fountains 

    Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area


    Is a mason-work sign, one that is the only one of its kind, not unique, art, and architecture? Is it not a placemark of local importance that shapes its identity? Does the flower garden surrounding and next to it not exemplify "a place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs" (to say nothing of the adjoining walking/biking path that encircles the community which can be said to begin there). Is a flower garden not a garden? (For your reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garden garden : a plot of ground where herbs, fruits, flowers, or vegetables are cultivated. A picture was included that shows some of the flower garden. It is the flower garden for the community, whether you choose to deny it or not. You can feel free to call the community HOA if you'd like. Please enlighten me as to how you determined that people from the community are not involved in the gardening. Please also note that the criteria that outlines what is eligible states that gardens are eligible and does not require it to be a community garden. As such, whether the community is involved, which you make presumptions regarding and further make statements based on such false and inaccurate presumptions, has no bearing.) Is a stonework sign (surrounded by a flower garden) any different from a fountain beyond its lack of water?

    Are community mailboxes not a destination and placemark of local importance and which makes the community unique and shapes its identity? Most housing in the broader area has individual mailboxes. Is it not a place you'd go to get some fresh air and stretch your legs? Is it not a good place to get some exercise as it connects to a walking/hiking path that goes around a lake with a bridge as well as is on a walking/biking path that goes throughout the community and is one of only two place for parking in the community to access them (the other being by the flagpole)? Is it not a gathering place for friends, neighbors, and strangers alike where people can watch public life happen? Does it not provide a location of shared circumstance that draws us together to share an experience in a locally relevant way? How is a community mail area different from a post office?

    Is a flag pole not a placemark of local interest and importance and which shapes the identity of the community? Is not the positioning/height, orientation, and type as well as origination of any flags that fly not communicative, symbolic, and reflective of the community? Does this not draw people together to share an experience in a locally and culturally relevant way? It is one of only two areas for public parking in the community and adjoins the walking/biking paths that go through the community which have no other landmark than the ones identified above. Are the only accessible public parking areas not a great gathering place for friends to walk these paths or even meet to talk, especially in a rural area?

    All of this also ignores the original reasons given as to why they were rejected as well. How is a flagpole offensive? How is a public flower garden and stonework signage a private residence?

    Sorry for being verbose. My verbosity and speech pattern tends to come across poorly in text.

  • dman41689-PGOdman41689-PGO Posts: 289 ✭✭✭

    flag poles are considered mass produced. flag poles are everywhere in front of schools, in public parks, shopping centers, government buildings, regular office buildings, etc. but if its a memorial flag pole then its considered unique because they are dedicated to different people that are usually notable to the community

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited January 26

    Explanations and direct reference to the criteria, as well quotes of it, you mean? With supporting questions that anyone with an ounce of integrity could agree upon, but where the resulting conclusion at the end of said breadcrumbs is distasteful to those in opposition and so is denied or ignored without foundation in reality or citation?

    That "most reviewers will see these objects as not really worthy of thumbs up" irrespective of the additional supporting information as well as consideration of the geographical location and significance to the community further highlights the disparity in treatment that rural areas receive as well as signifies the deviation from the written criteria in an attempt to maintain inclusion in a system that prioritizes agreement over accuracy and the human predilection towards superficial and rash decision making. Does the individual community and those within it, as well as their local circumstances and unique values and behaviors, not matter? Why should fantasy take precedence over reality? Why should the assumptions and presumptions of the willfully ignorant (willfully because it is a willful choice to ignore the information provided by one of a locale and instead impose one's own experience in a completely different locale and culture over that of the local) be favored over those with intimate, firsthand knowledge?

    Making claims based on false presumptions is not advice. Saying "no" or outright denial in response without substance (or on the basis of a claim that was already addressed, especially without acknowledging or addressing the information already provided that subverts the "substance," assuming what was written and the images were even looked at) is not advice. Intimating that blatantly false reasons for denial should be accepted without question and that poor practices and false assumptions should not be questioned or receive pushback is not advice. Being unable to reference the criteria that supports the view and claims being stated while being directly opposed to criteria that is directly referenced has questionable value, especially when a request is made for where I can review said criteria so that I can improve and be more knowledgeable. If I can demonstrate how the criteria is met through reference to the criteria, certainly the deficiencies can be directly noted through reference to the criteria without the need for fantasy or self-imposed presumptions counter to the information provided. No?

    How do you know what areas the people in this forum review?

    Why is there an insistence on making broad, baseless, and, ultimately, meaningless claims?

    Does an issue matter less if it affects someone else? If not, then does it matter any less if the thinking that led to poor arguments being made is propagated elsewhere? It certainly should not matter any less. That is even without considering the implications and impact on the culture at large as well as to the ML.

    "It might be better to spend your time and effort looking for objects that are more likely to be accepted." If only I had the privilege of living in a more urban environment where there are more options. As I have previously indicated, these are the only landmarks in the community (that are not private or a place of business, are walkable/bikeable as there are few sidewalks and pathways outside the community in the area, are safely accessible by pedestrians, and might even come close to being considered POIs). The community board is online and I do not think that would be accepted. Most things spread by word of mouth anyways... while walking on those paths and meeting and talking at those places that people who have never been there claim doesn't occur.

    And still... None can venture as to why a sign and garden were marked as a private residence or how to prevent such in other circumstances... Nor why a flagpole and/or its description was marked as offensive or how to prevent such in other circumstances... I am trying to prevent further denials on the basis for which these were marked as denied and asked how to prevent such, as I did not understand how these were denied for those reasons. None have made any connection between the denial reasons given and the entries submitted. None have given any advice or information on how to prevent those reasons for denial from occurring, especially when such reasons are so blatantly false. The reasons others have given I can understand the potential reasoning behind, regardless of my thoughts on the veracity and accuracy of such reasons in light of the information provided. At the very least, those reasons can be argued to be true by either side, so long as factual information is supplanted by the reviewers own biases that are not entirely unreasonable (however much such might rely on bigotry and ignorance). The reasons actually given in the system, however, cannot. How can such extreme departures from fact and reality be prevented?

  • 29andCounting-PGO29andCounting-PGO Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’m truly, truly sorry that there are not more objects in your immediate vicinity that are worthy of wayspots. I truly am. But unfortunately, that is the reality for many rural players Vs. Urban players. Your eloquent speeches and earnestness about your nominations are not going to change that. I don’t think you are going to convince reviewers to accept a flagpole and a mailbox. And don’t really worry too much about the rejection “reasons”. Only one person has to click that reason for it to show up.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited January 28


    Edited because the automatic censorship caused me to believe you had used explicit language and I was sharper in my response than deserved once I became aware that my perception was wrong.

    "This neighborhood already has one good POI around the pond."

    That is one that I submitted for the bridge, which I submitted for much the same reasons and required architectural craftsmanship and had the same basis of argument as my other submissions.


    " That's more than many, many neighborhoods get."

    We're judging based on how poorly the system and its incentivization is set up and other people having it worse as opposed to things being determined based on the respective environments according to the guidelines? I believe that is a horrible way to approach things. Being content with a low bar only serves to reinforce the belief that the low bar is sufficient. Too, it also promotes a downward trend as opposed to an upward one.


    "There's this **** mall. If you explain how people gather here, this has a better shot at being accepted than the neighborhood sign."

    You mean the chain grocery store, a chain hair place, a chain phone store, a chain restaurant, and a chain nail place? Even as **** malls go... It is small... It is inaccessible by pedestrians without using a motor vehicle as there are no sidewalks or paths that can be taken to get there, which prohibits safe activity/exercise. They are also locations that, aside from the restaurant, people do not meet to socialize, explore, or exercise. The guidelines also said not to nominate chain businesses (this was changed to a nebulous position since I had submitted my previous nominations). That a recommendation would be to not nominate something unique in accordance with the guidelines because people will ignore considerations of the area and difference in culture and geography even if they are told about them in the submission and to instead ignore the guidelines because people might ignore them based on the area baffles me (however much the second half aligns with a clarification from Niantic, which they leave up to reviewers to decide upon, and which I saw just recently, hence why I keep asking for references as well as the common issue of information being transmitted through increasing mediums becoming, too, increasingly distorted and warped unintentionally).


    "This fountain is out in front of the assisted living facility."

    No one has been able to remark on the difference between the masonry and architecture of a stone sign versus a fountain, especially when akin to this one in particular. From my point of view, this one would require loitering and trespassing as it is on private property and would only be reasonably accessible to those within the facility and their families and not the residents at-large of the surrounding area unless one were to access it while driving, which is not something I would want to encourage.


    "Warren's Breakfast & Grill would be a great place to nominate. Oh hey look, I already did!"

    Unfortunately, that misses the point of the stops I have been trying to make as it is not accessible to pedestrians in the community except by car. If I recall, there aren't any crosswalks, sidewalks, or paths on any of the roads leading to it. I do appreciate you proving my point about some of the people in this thread reviewing and submitting things pertaining to the area, however, your glibness aside. By the way, if you go there later in the evening, you might get stopped by a cop and have to go through a whole rigamorale because its a couple of doors down from a bank and they might just think you're casing the place, walking up and down the storefront. First-hand experience (part of why I chose public, open spaces that met the letter of the criteria).


    "Clover Mill Farms Pool needs to be submitted"

    Pokemon Go seems to be increasingly becoming the game that encourages activity by forcing you to drive around in your car to places unreachable by foot or bike. Notice that there are no sidewalks, crosswalks, pathways, etc in that image you shared. The time spent riding in a car is highly correlated to obesity rates, heart disease, etc. Driving around kind of goes against the stated mission of Niantic, doesn't it? It shouldn't be that you have to drive to someone else's community, because it is unreachable otherwise, and sit outside of a place that you don't have access to in your car to spin a stop and then drive away.


    "There are two buildings behind White Plains Baptist Church that might be a gym or a fellowship building - you should go check them out."

    The buildings are adjoined. Such is limited to the members of the church. If you are not a member of the church or seeking to join the church, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want random people poking around the back of their buildings. Also, there is a pokestop that is already there for the church, down a long road with very infrequent lights, no sidewalks, no paths, and on private property. So... it's more driving and no exercise. The alternative is to walk through the front and backyards of the neighborhood that abuts their property, but I have a feeling they wouldn't appreciate that either.


    "You could also investigate that cemetery to see if anyone of local significance is buried there. A former mayor or town founder, someone who served in state government, a long serving teacher or school principal, etc."

    Some people respect graveyards as places for the dead to rest and not for games. Count me among them. I also don't like the valuation or prioritization of one life over another on the basis of title or position, so that's not something I would be inclined to do (as the average individual would likely get rejected, and as people who have ulterior reasons for visiting areas, especially cemeteries and grave sites rarely seem to give as much care or respect for the dead and not too infrequently end up causing damage, even if inadvertently).


    "I couldn't get a photo of this without people the day I was out there. It's at Traditions Golf Course - practice tees."

    Yes. It is a private community. I believe you have to be a member to use the facilities, though they do allow you to eat there if you pay an additional considerable fee. I believe where you took the photo from is parked in front of the restricted area at the base of the water tower, correct? If you attempted to walk there, you know that there is only a sidewalk on the far side of the road for part of the way with no crossing or pedestrian access without walking down the road. They also don't appreciate people walking on the opposite side of the fence surrounding the tee, as I was told by staff when I attempted to walk within range of the water tower gym in a way that wouldn't require me to cross the main road in and out of the community that I could not be there and needed to leave. A warning... They have police patrol regularly and if your vehicle is caught up there, you may receive a ticket and/or fine. At least, that is what they told me when they asked what I was doing and I explained.


    "I don't think there's a POI for the golf course itself. Sometimes people submit the first hole to cover the whole course."

    I would need to become a member to gain access to the course. Too, one cannot walk or bike to the course unless one lives in that community and, even then, there are not sidewalks or paths all the way there even in that community (and not a single crosswalk that I can recall).


    "There are open cells at Gum Springs Park, but without satellite, I can't tell if things are placed correctly or if there are other things to add."

    It goes by cells? How are you able to see these cells? One stop isn't placed correctly but it's by a matter of maybe 10-20 yards. They are all essentially in the general area. I added one of the stops there, but not any of the fields.


    "I think there's only one POI for soccer fields, but there are 3 soccer fields. In your area, people should be willing to add a POI for each individual field. Ugh, the submitter did the same thing for all three baseball fields - only 1 POI when you could have gotten 3. You can probably get a POI for the batting cages next to the playground."

    I can't impact what else was submitted and due to the instruction not to duplicate, I didn't attempt to add the fields separately since stops already existed for the generality of them. Because of the layout of the soccer fields, where there is a singular fence around all three (and I don't even know if they have the borders marked), they probably viewed it as a whole. I can't say the same for the baseball fields, regarding the perception of whoever submitted it, as they are readily distinct. There are no batting cages, though. This area also requires people to drive to it and is inaccessible by foot or bike. It is also next to a school, which going there consistently on weekdays (especially without a kid of your own) isn't necessarily a great look (not to mention not being able to leave for over an hour during most days because the only way to leave requires you to go through the school parking lot and the line for vehicles to pick-up children blocks the exit).


    "There's a church across the road from Gum Springs Park. I think there were people around when I was there so I skipped taking a photo."

    I really would rather not trespass on private property to play a game completely unrelated to the business or property. If they pay, of their own accord, for one of the special stops, then that is their decision, but I'm not invading their space with an ulterior motive.


    "that's several things that can be submitted that will most likely be approved."

    Most likely, so even you aren't certain that they would be because the guidelines are not consistently applied in letter or in consideration of the area and inhabitants of such, further supporting the prevalence of the issue I referenced (which has been confirmed by another as being the case as well as a release from Niantic saying such in reference to the circumstances of a number of suggestions you made, the nebulousness of which is irksome).


    "That's on top of the 24 POI that I have personally added to your town and the neighboring town. Plus other people from my general area have been through there and added POI as well."

    From what you've said, it seems you drive through the area, as do those others, but don't actually reside there. You seem to approach it as a commuter and not as a resident. You're already in a car when you're driving by, so what does it matter if you can't walk, bike, or hike there? It seems that it does not matter if there are more factually applicable items to the mission Niantic has set forth because some such items wouldn't be commonly so elsewhere. It seems open consideration is not given, in general, to the community and its inhabitants in giving circumstantial consideration for submissions when those circumstances can be ignored and the guidelines can be openly gone against (in a way, with success) in a different fashion that is more palatable, even if less accurate. I am not one to trespass for a minute and then leave and would not encourage such behavior. I would rather burn calories than gas and argue for the chance to do so, even if it is uphill. If there were sidewalks and crosswalks... If the majority were on public property... That would be one thing. It'd be a long walk, but a walk it would be. As it stands, many of the locations aren't safe to walk or bike to (and require a car to reach safely)... and I spend enough time in a car than to want to spend time I should be active and exercising, time I can spend talking with my neighbors concurrently, driving instead (and all because people outside of the community want to tell people inside the community whether they do the things they do or not).

    Completely unchanged (the only addendum I will make here is that the majority I did not believe I could submit I now know are potentials to submit, as maybes, if I'm lucky, per Niantic, if I get the right reviewer):

    I do appreciate the effort you put into your response. That is certainly readily apparent and admirable. You've also provided/alluded to some things I was not aware of. I certainly appreciate that insight as well. I do my best to abide by the rules I am aware of, which is why I've asked where the rules or limitations I was not aware of are located previously. Opinion I will argue to high hell, but sourced and static information is something else, upon which the merits can be argued but the items itself are a given (notably, some of my argument could be said to be upon the merits). Even if they might be accepted, I do not intend to knowingly make submissions that I believe to violate the guidelines, nor will I trespass to get to locations, so I cannot submit the majority of the suggestions you made. Just because I disagree with the foundation or applicability of the suggestions, especially in consideration of access and use, does not mean I do not recognize and appreciate the effort. I know I can be abrasive. Thought the least I could do was convey my recognition of that. For that, you have my thanks.

    Post edited by Xalerion0-PGO on
  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭

    I had no idea that only one person has to select a reason for it to show up. I thought it had to be the majority or primary reason or something. I certainly appreciate that information. That is much of what I found irksome because the other points at least had some foundation, even if I disagreed, but I could not fathom the reasons I received through the system. Thank you.

  • 29andCounting-PGO29andCounting-PGO Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This was a long post and I’m only commenting on a few things I read in there. Stripe Malls and restaurants inherently have pedestrian access. You can safely walk into a store or a restaurant. They do not have to have sidewalks. It does not say anywhere that you cannot nominate chain restaurants. You’re kind of digging in your heels that you think your nominations meet criteria. Most of the experienced wayfarers in this forum disagree with you. But that’s ok. Prove us wrong. Maybe add all the ways that each object meets the criteria (I know you made list earlier in another post) and try to re submit again.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited January 27

    https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/49416/about-chain-or-franchise-business

    Post. Top comment. Screenshot. References.

    That's what I looked at and saw when I made my nominations and why I referenced what I did.

    It's funny that no one else can supply any besides "trust me." It's not like I haven't asked (what is it? 4 times now? 5?) for where I can see the information being referenced.

    Looking at later comments that were made after I had looked at it previously, it says they may be eligible (though not *is eligible*) but it is up to the reviewer and for them to consider the additional details given (the same details which were and are still being ignored with my other nominations. Funny that).

  • 29andCounting-PGO29andCounting-PGO Posts: 2,307 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ok let me take another approach. What exactly are you needing help with? I’ll help the best I can. Are you wanting an easy place to find all the answers to what meets criteria and what doesn’t? You won’t find it. There are too many gray areas to spell out each example and why it fits out doesn’t fit . Are you wanting to know why your specific nominations were rejected? We can’t know for sure, but we suspect that it’s because many reviewers consider mailboxes and flagpole generic mass produced items. Even though that’s no longer a rejection criteria, it used to be and it’s been ingrained in so many reviewers minds for so long that it’s very hard if not impossible to get that idea out of their minds. Are you wanting to know how to keep your nominations from being rejected again? Again we can’t know for sure, but I think that those nomination specifically the flagpole and the mailbox will get rejected 99 out of 100 times. Are you willing to nominate them 100 times? You might have better luck with the neighborhood sign. Sometimes those are now being accepted because they are unique to each neighborhood. With all that being said, if you reply again, with very mean sounding tone, I will no longer help you.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭

    "It does not say anywhere that you cannot nominate chain restaurants... Prove us wrong."

    *Provided link to what I had previously referenced where indication existed of such. Stated that there was additional info there not previously seen before and admitted that it changed the previous circumstance but did not provide a determination and instead left it in the hands of reviewers to determine based on extraneous information. Remarked on the extraneous information being that which had been supplied and ignored and the irony of it. Pointed out the lack of willingness and/or ability to provide any official referential material by those responding to back up their claims whereas I have been able and willing to do so and have done so on multiple occasions.*

    "Don't have a very mean sounding tone again"

    Are you referring to that message? You don't seem to quote the messages you are responding to.

    There was a prior message that I responded to where I believed the person to have used an expletive due to the formatting and censorship; however, looking back, I see that mine was censored in a way where their censored portion would have been due to the same cause and not an expletive. I was not aware that the system would censor such a benign word. That post toward the other person can certainly use some editing with that new information in mind.

    From my understanding of this latest post from you, the system and guidelines are an inconsistent mish-mash that is not outlined, detailed, or organized to anything beyond, at most, a nominal degree and one would be lucky to find a consistent or fully endorsed answer/view that isn't ultimately as ephemeral as it is nebulous.

    Throughout all this, I have gotten many answers to my questions (positions or claims I disagree or could argue with still provide answers, to say nothing of additional tangential minutia that provided answers to questions I didn't know to ask). I was seeking solid footing. You have just said there, effectively, is none. I don't know of any further answers that can be provided if there is, for all intents and purposes, none to give beyond what may be and what possibly may occur.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭
    • I am sure they appreciate you coming in, after the fact and after I've indicated that I don't have anymore questions, to give them a pat on the back and tag on to what was said in a way that misrepresents what has been said.

    • - "you posted a question asking why your stops were rejected. Multiple people explained why."
    • I asked why they were rejected for the reasons given and how to prevent it in the future - Number that addressed that and didn't provide their own reasons for why they would reject them: 1

    • - "They aren't _defending_ the rules, they're explaining them."
    • Where did I say they were defending the rules? Please quote me. How many times did I ask for a link to where I could see what they were referring to so that I could read them? How many times do I need to point out that this was one of my primary sticking points? Have you ever played the game "telephone?" It's a simple illustration. I've already mentioned that before, too, however. At this point, one could easily argue that your comment exemplifies to a T one of the issues at play, with the degree of separation between what was said and what your presentation of what was said as well as what you omitted, willfully or otherwise.

    • - "pointing out potential POIs that do comply with the rules"
    • Which I've already made multiple remarks on and already went over, multiple times, with links and references (me being the only one to provide them), where I made remarks based on the info I was aware of, that no one could provide any information regarding a change to, that have supposedly been here so long and are so knowledgeable and yet weren't aware and/or didn't recall that what I said was previously true about them not being in compliance and their compliance being contested mere months ago, which was a point of contention for some time before Niantic provided a nebulous answer... and the issue again was that no one was ever able to provide any referential link or info despite it being requested multiple times... Bad nominations have gotten through plenty of times. Plenty of stops and gyms are taken down after the fact due to them being poor and not meeting criteria. If the judicial system, with a cornucopia of clearly recorded referential material, can make innumerable mistakes, do you believe a vague and inconsistent body without a reliable or organized referential resource can't? Do you "learn" without questioning? Do you wonder why? It is a pretty straightforward method of learning. How better to understand the distinction than between a mason-work sign and a mason-work fountain than to ask? Does "it just is" satisfy your quest for knowledge and understanding? Would that tell you anything of value? Would it help you to better understand not only that situation but be better able to apply it in other circumstances that aren't an exact duplication due to better understanding of the underlying principle?

    • -"You don't have to trust that they're right, you have proof--three denied nominations!"
    • This way of thinking is as lazy as it is wrong. A number of unrelated people for their own reasons and way of thinking decided to deny my nomination. How many voted in favor of it? You don't know? Okay. How many voted against it? You don't know. Okay. How many classified a flagpole as offensive? Do you find a flagpole offensive? Does them indicating a flagpole as offensive make flagpoles offensive? How about a mason-work sign and flower garden being labeled as a private residence? Is that something you agree with as well? The people you are claiming as being correct because they were part of a majority who agreed on the outcome, but not the why, are certainly not infallible. Certainly that is easy enough to see. I've even said that some of them have foundation, even if I disagree with them. Did you miss that before you decided to jump in and add to the bandwagon? Not to mention... My nominations being denied, as they don't prove them as being poor nominations (for if it did, why would an appeals process need exist?), also do not prove any statements by unrelated parties as being correct or true, especially when such cannot be associated with Niantic's guidelines despite multiple requests for assistance in locating where that information is available so that I can cure my ignorance. If something negative happens as a result of a choice you made, you believe the next Tom, Dick, or Harry that pipes up, no matter what they say, despite them dodging requests for more sources and more detail? That will certainly lead to an interesting life. Do you believe everything you read online?

    • -"Nobody here made the rules, or can change the rules, so there's no point in arguing that they're stupid."
    • Who argued that the rules are stupid? There was an argument on applicability, interpretation, and what the rules are. There was a request for a link to the information being purported to be true which could not be provided by anyone aside from myself. Nobody was asked to make any new rules or change any rules. There seems to be a lot of straw going about.

    • -"Take the explanations and advice you literally asked for and which has been thoughtfully given and significantly increase your changes of getting POIs approved, or don't and be mad about it."
    • Commanding me what to do... and to do what I already did no less. Such bravado. Did you insert yourself into this to rehash the same thing that's been said over and over again, ignoring what I've said, requested, linked, admitted to, and accepted for a power trip where you couldn't let dogs lie or is your reading comprehension just that bad? Considering the totality of your comment and your representation of the thread, I would be hard-pressed to make a guess. What value did your comment add?


  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 3,365 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Don't ask for help if you're not willing to listen to the people trying to help you.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,299 Ambassador

    @Xalerion0-PGO

    Rejections are very frustrating and annoying. Everyone will have had the experience of one of their nominations being rejected. So the first step is to accept that Wayfarer is all about judgements based on guidelines, and that there will be differences in opinion. It is not something where there are clear cut yes or no answers.

    Step 2 means that as a submitter you need to present a good case. In coming to this forum you are recognising the need to understand what might have happened - none of us know for certain but we can use our experience and apply it to your nominations and try to identify issues.

    Fellow Wayfinders have taken time and explained why there are issues with the 3 rejections you brought here, and why they might have failed. You are free to ignore those opinions but I would suggest that instead of questioning those opinions you spend sometime reflecting.

    It appears to me that you have developed an interpretation of how wayfarer should work. In order to progress you need to be open to the possibility that that interpretation is flawed. Again that is a process that most will have gone through, I know personally that my ideas and interactions with how wayfarer works have grown and changed over time……partly because things have changed on the Wayfarer side over time. It is not something where you arrive with some concrete rules about objects that are applied globally and once learnt will never change, and that everyone will follow exactly. Every submission is different as well.

    Reflect on the advice given about these 3. If following that you want to resubmit feel free to post reworked submissions. If you want to submit other objects again prior to submission you are welcome to do so. But if the answers are not “this is a great submission” be prepared to take on board the points made - it’s not easy but it’s what I would suggest if you want a less frustrating wayfinder experience.

  • tehstone-INGtehstone-ING Posts: 1,128 Ambassador
  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭

    "Don't question what anyone tells you and ask for a reference for what they said, for verification and for the purpose of further learning" Great advice. I hope you enjoy your dopamine spike farm.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭


    Based on the information 29andCounting-PGO provided, I have come to understand much of what you said regarding the lack of consistency as well as that the primary issue I had taken, which was missed by the rest (and was how they were rejected for the reasons the system had returned with and how to prevent those rejection reasons from occurring), is only needed to be selected by a single individual and is not the sole, primary, or even the majority reason (meaning it cannot be prevented because people will be people). I accepted that as the answer in my last response to that individual. Many of the responses that have occurred since have added no value beyond to themselves to dogpile on after the fact. Yours is the only one that seems genuine and seems to approach this in good faith (since 29andCounting-PGO's last post) I appreciate your input and effort. Thank you.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭

    "You're using "rules" to justify your own nominations that aren't rules while also using "rules" to discourage other nominations that aren't rules."

    What have I claimed or labeled as rules that aren't? None. Bad faith argument.


    "1) Pedestrian access does not require sidewalks."

    Where did I say it did? I said it didn't have "pedestrian access without using a motor vehicle" as a reason for me being disinclined towards it as I was hoping to promote health and greater (safe) access while reducing the health implications and financial expenditure for people in general. Bad faith argument.


    "2) Private property is not a reason to reject a nomination."

    That's funny. In 3 you admit that it is and it was the reason given for the rejection of one of my submissions. Bad faith argument.


    "In fact, the ones you're trying so desperately to get approved are on private property and would "encourage trespassing.""

    You aren't aware of public easements? Public access? Sidewalks? Interesting. Bad faith argument.


    "But none of us have listed that as a reason yours were rejected."

    That's funny. I appreciate you proving you didn't pay attention to my initial post. The system did and that was what I asked about.


    "How is the pool in one neighborhood a worse nomination than the flagpole in your own neighborhood?"

    Pools require membership. There is also no sidewalk there for public access to be able to walk by and utilize the stop without intruding upon the grounds. Most such properties generally have signs regarding towing if you are not a resident and/or do not have permission to park there. There is also limited parking. I've said some of this before regarding the deficiencies. I also never claimed whether one was better or worse. I only explained why I was for one and why I was disinclined to the other. Bad faith argument. Strawman.


    "A pool is somewhere people go to exercise and to hang out with their neighbors - legitimately. But because *you* don't want to go there, it's not eligible? Your logic makes no sense."

    Your willful choice to ignore and misconstrue my position and thoughts is a reflection of you, not me. Who said I would not want to go there? Who said my interest in going there was a factor? Bad faith argument. Strawman.


    "3) The restriction on private property is limited to single family homes."

    You may want to take a look at your 1. Additionally, that was the point I referenced in my initial post. I appreciate your further demonstration of the issue I inquired about that you had not remarked on until this point. Bad faith and contradictory to your previous remark within the same comment.


    "POI can't be placed on the property of a single family home. None of what I suggested is on that kind of property."

    I never said that any of it was on the property of a single family home. I never said any of it violated Niantic's guidelines on the basis of being on private property. I said that I would prefer not to be on private property that is not intended for public use/access in excess of their customer base unless they choose to do so themselves. I also remarked that one of the reasons is related to not wanting to encourage people to trespass on such and remarked on the safety and damage that can be done to such locations. Not to mention, there are laws regarding loitering, trespassing, etc. Just because something meets Niantic's guidelines does not mean it would be acceptable for the Assisted Living Facility, for example.


    "To be honest with you, your excuses for not submitting the places I've found make you sound like a very selfish Wayfinder."

    Of course. I am selfish because I don't want to cemeteries and the dead to be disrespected, for property to be damaged, for medical housing facilities for the elderly to be respected and not invaded by people for a game completely unrelated to their purpose, etc. I am selfish because I want to encourage more exercise and less car travel. I am selfish because I want people to be safe while exercising and playing and am looking for things that will help toward such, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting, etc. as well as looking for places that do not encourage or require people to play while driving. I am selfish because I recognize the impact that people can have on private property as well as how people can utilize their limited resources, including but not limited to parking, and consider how what I do can impact them and respect their ability to choose whether they want to participate or not. Yes. I am so selfish. It sounds like you didn't try to understand my position in good faith. Ad hominem.

    Not to mention that I gave you a warning about the golf place/water tower and the bank out of pure selfishness because you getting ticketed and harassed impacts me so (to say nothing of how it impacts them and their patrons as well.)


    "If you aren't going to use it, then it shouldn't be submitted."

    When did I state this? I said what I was inclined and disinclined to do. A few of you certainly like to put words in my mouth and misrepresent what has been said. Is honesty and arguing in good faith so difficult? Bad faith. Strawman.


    "That's not how Wayfarer works."

    When did I say it was? Again... Bad faith.


    "Most of us have submitted hundreds of POI that we will personally never interact with."

    Good for you. Beyond arguing the bad faith strawman...This matters why?


    "This endeavor is about making "the community" better, not about making your game experience better."

    That's funny. You ignored the reasons I provided as to why, in consideration of the actual community, I was disinclined from submitting several of those even though it would place more stops around the area. It seems you're more concerned about the game than the people living in the community. Such has seemingly been demonstrated consistently. It goes along with the commuter mentality I referenced earlier. You don't seem to have concern for the people there or the impact the game has on those individuals as long as it adds to the game. It doesn't impact someone passing through, so why would someone passing through care about the larger impact? You may want to do some self-reflection. Bad faith.

  • Xalerion0-PGOXalerion0-PGO Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited January 30

    Enjoy your farm (as well as anyone else that chooses to bandwagon after I've already indicated multiple times that my questions have been answered). If people can't take something, they shouldn't give it. If people can't handle being questioned or asked for references, don't present yourself as a knowledgeable authority regarding an entity's policy. If people lack reading comprehension or integrity, that is on them. If people willfully lie, they should expect to receive pushback. If a recommendation is to be given, it should be considered for oneself, first. If a gentle breeze is a mortal wound, may the afflicted live a long and prosperous life in a setting conducive to their sensitivities, unquestioned, unopposed, with plenty of affirmation. Best of luck to you.

    Post edited by Xalerion0-PGO on
This discussion has been closed.