Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here:

Ancient Stone Age monuments



  • YouLostAStar-INGYouLostAStar-ING Posts: 280 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It’s not “just landscaping” though. They didn’t build a hill fort for the aesthetics, it was a strategic location and vital for the tribes protection against a rival tribe. And now those locations are popular tourist destinations but for some reason the local councils haven’t put a sign there

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticCasey-ING This unfortunately weird argument is getting nowhere.

    The Wayfarer rules, as written, disallow this particular kind of "old thing": the "Mound". The same as a city park = "natural features", so does this. It's only redeeming feature is "it's old and/or a spot where historical things happened". There's no other sign or human-made object left behind besides a big pile of dirt.

    If you would like to chip in, great. Otherwise I've already said everything. They're repeating themselves, I'm repeating myself, and they're not going to give up.

    @AgentB0ssING-PGO I recall one other similarly obstinate but-now-unnameable person who similarly refused to give up lol

  • NorthSeaPoet-INGNorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A "hill of dirt"? You don't even sound like you know what you're arguing against now.

    Barrows, hill-forts, neolithic stones, etc are all MAN-MADE, and shouldn't require a sign.

    Stonehenge - as in the actual stones - is a wayspot, but based on your logic, that would make it "a natural feature" and just "a pike of stones".

    There is also a huge difference between iron age or stone age structures that are man-made and roadside scenery.

  • YouLostAStar-INGYouLostAStar-ING Posts: 280 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @0X00FF00-ING don’t compare me with timerclock (or his other alt names) I’m arguing about something interesting and historic. All I’m trying to ask Niantic is whether something historical and culturally interesting requires a sign to get accepted. If Casey says it needs a sign then I will be content with Niantics decision, but for now I see these come under many criteria, particularly historical importance and places you would take a visitor.

    the lack of sign though is an issue and I just want an answer yes or no whether no sign disqualifies something manmade

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Here is a barrow, as found by Google:

    What about it, pray tell, is it besides "moved dirt"?

    Of COURSE the webllink includes the history. But as presented, it CANNOT be an accepted wayspot as per the rules. It's just landscaping.

    Get yourself a sign, sir.

  • YouLostAStar-INGYouLostAStar-ING Posts: 280 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If your take of that page is that all that interesting historical locations are just “moved dirt” then we will never agree, half of those I have visited and taken my family. Not all have signs unfortunately but that doesn’t make them a “natural feature”. the only way to resolve this is an official response from @NianticCasey-ING

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    All that REMAINS there is the pile of "moved dirt".

    The Wayfarer rules, which you are trying to interpret extremely liberally, STILL require us to be able to walk up to the object and touch it and interact with it. And all that's there? the very old pile.

  • YouLostAStar-INGYouLostAStar-ING Posts: 280 ✭✭✭✭✭

    if all you see is “moved dirt” tells me you don’t understand the history behind it. However like you said this argument isn’t going anywhere. Can we agree to disagree and ask @NianticCasey-ING for a response either way.

    Either historical sites require a sign and I can accept that if that is the decision or if there is plenty of evidence that a location is of historic/cultural importance by evidence of archeological digs and research papers on a location that in light of this a sign is not necessarily required.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I understand the history just fine. I just can't, when I'm there, interact with anything other than dirt that's been nicely piled up. Sure, there's a long-ago dead guy under there, possibly an ancient and long-forgotten chieftain or somesuch.

    But. you. can't. submit. dirt.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And I'm not arguing against OTHER old/historical sites and monuments. Stonehenge, as a particularly famous example: the rocks were shaped by man (you can google for the "lego-like" knobs and holes if you like), and arranged by man, and (other than technically trespassing), you can walk up to them and touch them if you'd like.

    But when the site is otherwise nothing but the pile of dirt, it's a "nope". I feel for ya, man. And I've got my OWN "local history" manmade things that I'm having my own devil-of-a-time getting submitted, with enough rejections I might be worried about my "submitter score" lol

  • grsmhiker-INGgrsmhiker-ING Posts: 159 ✭✭✭✭

    By that logic, a statue is just a lump of mixed up sand, lime, and mortar, and the Eiffel Tower is just a collection of iron scaffolding. The whole point here is that it's the cultural/historical importance of the manmade object that we are rating it on. It's the same reason why a memorial plaque (Er, or I mean lump of metal) dedicated to Joe Parkgoer is not notable enough to qualify, but a memorial for the late senator who established the park might be.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That is a straw man argument and you know it.

    Explain please, WHAT is the precise difference between a very large pile of dirt made today, and a very large pile of dirt made a thousand (or more) years ago?


    What is the difference between an artistic sculpture or architectural monument made today, and one made a thousand (or more) years ago?


    While we CAN submit the great pyramids or stonehenge or the Statue of Liberty, under artistic or architectural grounds, we CANNOT submit a freaking. pile. of. dirt, regardless of its age.

  • grsmhiker-INGgrsmhiker-ING Posts: 159 ✭✭✭✭

    I'm curious to see, then, what your thoughts are on this particular pile of rocks...

    I'm not rating based on the material, I'm rating based on the historical and/or cultural significance attached to the reason why the material was arranged so.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    That is not a “barrow” or “burial mound” or “pile of dirt” that I’m arguing against.

    You are apparently trying to draw a literal line in the sand, somewhere between the municipal park lacking a sign that we all ALREADY KNOW cannot be submitted, and the ancient pile of dirt.

    Your pretty swirly seaside constructed “jetty” is yet-again a completely different class of object that has no bearing on said “barrow”.

  • oscarc1-INGoscarc1-ING Posts: 366 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Is there a specific example that is being argued for here?

    Looking at the Barrows of Wiltshire example, sure the location might have some historical merit, but what is the actual man-made object? It's a big hill. If you start accepting hills, you set a dangerous precedent for other hills of various sizes, where does the line get drawn, and moreso where do you even place the pin? Not to mention the hill would just simply be deemed a natural feature anyway.

    Just going to Google Images and searching for "Barrows of Wiltshire", many of the results are just photos of grass-covered lumps in the ground.

    If the thing has a sign, submit that. Otherwise it is nothing more than a natural feature, even if it is landscaped by man, it's still a natural feature.

    At least Wikipedia gives a bit more detail on the Barrows, you could try submitting the entrances, even though they are just a bunch of rocks, if you can provide enough evidence and tell the story as to why they are notable, people might accept them.

    Stonehenge is different as that is a monument. it is well known and easily recognisable. Show me a a generic barrow with no distinct features and I'll question you why I'm being shown a hill.

    The spiral jetty, Wikipedia says it's an artwork and at least that has a distinct visual look to it which makes it look interesting. The examples given so far have been apples and oranges and not comparable to each other.

  • Faversham71-INGFaversham71-ING Posts: 306 ✭✭✭✭

    Long barrows aren't just 'piles of dirt' - it's just that sometimes soil remains covering the stone structure. I suspect exposed barrows such as Wayland's Smithy would sail through the review process, regardless of whether there's a sign. They're relatively complex structures - not just a pile of rocks.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭✭✭

    .... isnt that from breath of the wild lol I'm homing but that's what I thought when I saw that

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    And, when there IS some visible structure that you can physically touch and interact with, those are “ruins” AND are (were?) explicitly called out in the OPR/Wayfarer guidelines as an acceptable submission.

    Without such, my point still stands. Don’t. submit. dirt.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not wanting to get into a fill argument, but I've seen a good few underground structures that have an entrance to them but dont have a sign, but they are tourist attractions. Would you reject those even though the thing is underground? Admittedly if I were to do that I would try to get a picture from the inside but still

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Altitude" has no bearing on wayspot acceptability. Something can be at ground level, in the sub-sub-sub-basement, or dozens of stories high. The only applicable restriction for these is "pedestrian access" -- that you can stand at the spot* and safely interact with the submitted item.

    Getting them accepted by reviewers is a different matter -- heck, they don't even want to accept something properly acceptable in a lobby for the entire sin of being "inside". Photospheres help (some), signs help (more). You'll likely have more luck at an entrance, but (as with churches) it is allowed to have both "sign" and "item" separately submitted IF both are a (poorly defined) "significant distance" apart.

    *a minor clarification re: murals at a notable height: apparently being able to touch the outside "wall" at ground level was sufficient? I believe this may have been asked at an old AMA

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 766 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As another aside, there are prehistoric cave paintings in France (and I assume elsewhere). But! there are caveats that preclude the ancient wall art themselves from being submitted.

    Visitors are strictly forbidden from photographing them. The light from the flash damages them, pretty much exactly the same way old posters left out in the sunlight fade away.

    But the outdoor signage IS indeed a good and proper wayspot.

    Another concern that may annoy the conservators: inclusion of these items as a wayspot can lead to increased awareness and increased foot traffic ... and increased damage to history. So should the most terrible thing happen -- your newly accepted submission suddenly disappears -- respect that, and please don't resubmit.

    I'd personally encourage submissions at outdoor already-accessible locations, wherever possible, instead. But not necessarily at the locations of our fragile history.

Sign In or Register to comment.