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: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/

About playgrounds in post-USSR countries.

I've read through all official wayfarer criteria guides and clarifications. Here's almost the only thing that is said about Playgrounds.

Eligible, as long as they are not located on primary and secondary school grounds, child care centers, day care centers, or private residential property. Indoor playgrounds should be evaluated on their cultural and historical significance.

So that means we should vote any of them as 4-5 unless they have some flaws like being on school ground, having blurred photo, problematic title or description and so on.

Here in post-USSR countries, most multi-storey buildings built during USSR times, have playgrounds in front of every of them. It's not like in Western countries where there are a few playgrounds for each district and that's it, no.

With that said, many of such playground are never renovated, corrode with time and are worthy for nothing except for scrap. Those which are renovated or rebuilt, however, are done using the same concepts and constructs everywhere (basically Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, and a few changes).

If we still vote 4-5 stars on them, we'd have a portal or even several portals in front of every single multi-storey residential building. I do not want that, since the wayspot network as a source of interesting wayspots would become worthy of nothing, because they definitely are not interesting, unique, or are what you'd want to show to someone from another city. People are starting to use that rules shortcoming and submit such playgrounds in front of buildings they live in, or on their path to work, stores, etc.

I personally think there's no place in wayspot database for them. However as they basically fall under the rules, there are people who disagree, and submit/approve them. I see this as a deterioration of the wayspot network. Now, the question is what should I tell the people who say "every playground is eligible" and review with this in mind. Here are a few examples. How would you vote on them and how should I?



Answers

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    I would vote 5* because Niantic says they are eligible and they would be important to the community who live in the block of apartments as somewhere for their children to play and socialise.

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,036 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's Niantic the one that sets the rules, and there are other objects far more common than those playgrounds.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 672 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Even a dilapidated playground does still technically qualify under Niantic's guidelines, so long as:

    1. only one submission per playground
    2. only in "public" spaces or in "common" areas of multiple-dwelling locations
  • Alevanez-PGOAlevanez-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭

    I'm totally with you as a Russian. Guys, what you fail to understand is not only these are dime a dozen but also the only reason they keep on popping up is trainer who's too lazy to go out and explore and wants some "pet" stop nearby his home to play from inside.

    To the topic starter - i can't reject nomination but i can (and i do) mark it with 2 stars and 1 for culture significance and 1 for uniqueness and explain my choices in commentary section

  • Glaenor-INGGlaenor-ING Posts: 7 ✭✭


    Another Ingress player from a post-soviet country here. I agree with the original poster. While it might seem that a playground must be something that is important to the community, this does not apply to these "playgrounds". There are many such Soviet-time "playgrounds" in my town, and I don't remember ever having seen any children playing there within last 10 years or so.

    Unfortunately, it is not "legal" to reject these according to Niantic rules. I just skip evaluating them and hope to at least slow down the deterioration of portal network a tiny bit.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 616 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Finnish here, I've reviewed my share of post USSR playgrounds, so I know what you people are talking about. For the OP's question "How would you vote on them and how should I?" Please, vote according to criteria so for example I'm not punished for reviewing correctly.

    --

    If one gives a playground 2*, that means a rejection. Maintained playgrounds are 4*-5*, cultural 3*, and uniqueness 2-4 (if you can find it based on picture, different equipments etc., there's no excuse for using 1*).

    Abandoned playgrounds are a different situation IMO.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    I live in an apartment block and we don't have a playground for the kids that live here and I wish we did. We have a single swing for a block of maybe 70 flats, many of which have children in. I think that is a bit sad and it would be amazing if we had a playground like the ones you pictured. I think it's nice for your country if there is a playground for every apartment block.


    On your point about them being common... I think there is something in every country that some reviewers think is too common, but if they are eligible we need to vote as the guidelines state. And if it means that some players have a home waypoint well, they are lucky that they live somewhere that has an eligible home waypoint (like many who live in big cities). I don't see that as a reason to reject at all.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 925 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2020

    #1-4 look like clear accepts to me (barring any other issues). #1 and #4 are definitely built from the same "kit," but that doesn't preclude them both being accepted.

    #5 definitely looks more worn, but not enough to be unusable. And the grass around it isn't overgrown at all. I'd most likely accept this as well.

    #6 looks more like exercise equipment. If described properly, I could see it being accepted.

    The last one, #7, I would have no problem rejecting. Not just the rust but also the height of the weeds makes it clear that this isn't maintained as an active playground.

  • Alevanez-PGOAlevanez-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭

    " On your point about them being common... I think there is something in every country that some reviewers think is too common, but if they are eligible we need to vote as the guidelines state. And if it means that some players have a home waypoint well, they are lucky that they live somewhere that has an eligible home waypoint (like many who live in big cities). I don't see that as a reason to reject at all."

    Yes - this is what i do exactly

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 616 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "...but if they are eligible we need to vote as the guidelines state."

    "Yes - this is what i do exactly"

    and

    "To the topic starter - i can't reject nomination but i can (and i do) mark it with 2 stars and 1 for culture significance and 1 for uniqueness and explain my choices in commentary section"

    can't both be correct. You're voting (purposefully?) against the guidelines. 2* means ineligible.

  • Alevanez-PGOAlevanez-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭

    is correct. i follow guidelines and guidelines dont stop me from giving low star marks to something that is not unique and culturally significant. if a playsite bears at least some redeeming quality i mark it accordingly.


    also, sorry for offtop, i know of 2 star rating, but what about 3? is it a minimal accepted requirement or am i barking on the wrong tree here?

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 616 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2020

    So for the first 5 examples in this thread you'd give 4* or 5* overall? And ~3* for cultural and uniqueness?

    3* is neutral, neither for nor against, "I don't know".

  • Alevanez-PGOAlevanez-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭

    got you. for samples above. Pic 1 - is clearly new and although it's typical (look at pic2) it's in the residential area - so social recognition is definitely 3, I'd say 4. Uniqueness is still at 3. Accessability is clear 5. Overall it's closer to 4.

    Pic 2 is the same but i like that fish on side - makes it stand from the crowd and shows a labor of love so uniqueness is clearly 4, overall - 4

    Pic 3 is where the problem starts- place looks dangerously desolate but then i don't know the bigger picture - it might be a small town or a village as we understand it in Russia (less than 1000 people). Social recognition is 3, uniqueness is very week 3, maybe 4 tops because of that yellow horsey thingy, Accessibility is a question and 4 at the best because i can see some water pipes there meaning typically it's on the outskirts of the residential area and near by a road. Overall - 3

    Pic 6. looks weird ( it'll be great for some lo-fi horror movie though). Social - is 2, no one uses it for ages, uniqueness is 2 as it's a typical sport equipment - dime dozen) Accessability is probably at 4. Overall i would rather put 2 because there should be a nice story behind why would somebody wants to make a stop out of it

    Pic 7. Welcome to hell. Social is 1 star because i can't use negative rating. Uniqueness is sadly 1. I now live in very small community and unfortunately that's how majority of public playground look like in very small villages. Accessibility though is clear 5. Overall it's 2 as it's a scary and sad site to look at.


    kinda like that,

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 616 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Got it. Misunderstood your first post. Honest thanks for glarification.

  • Ultimo6419-PGOUltimo6419-PGO Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    We need to follow the regulations. Playgrounds in appartement complexes are eligible. You could give a 1* for cultural significance if they are totally corroded and nobody ever visits. I think this forum is the right place to speak up if regulations seem unappropriate. I am pretty sure it is an impulse for Niantic to think it over, even if regulations persist. Playgrounds are found everywhere. If well maintained historical objects were the only eligible POI, then large rich communities would probably have too much benefit.

Sign In or Register to comment.