It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
You really seem to have an issue telling the difference between "eligible" and "not ineligible".
Ineligible Wayspots: Nominations that are images of adult-oriented stores or services. Including liquor stores, adult entertainment, **** ranges, firearm stores, etc. Establishments that serve alcoholic beverages like bars and pubs are acceptable.
This doesn't mean "accept all bars and pubs". It just means bars and pubs are not off-limits like liquor stores and **** ranges. They can be eligible, but they're not something that we're 100% supposed to accept like public libraries and churches. Whether or not they are eligible is based on their cultural and or historical value.
Even if we say that the only pub in a small town of 200 people is probably popular with the locals, you're doing yourself a disservice by basically wasting your supporting info with unsubstantiated claims. Don't say "bars are eligible" say "this bar is popular with the locals and has 5000 check-ins which you can confirm yada yada."
Supporting info doesn't get reflected on the wayspot in games, showing people where it meets criteria is allowed.
You're not showing anything! That's the point we're trying to make. If you think these businesses are local hotspots, give us evidence to confirm that.
During Ingress First Saturday (this month in Enfield, UK) the UK Wayfarers will host a live stream where we can talk about reviewing techniques and see example submissions of great stuff. You are welcome to join us even if you don't take part in our FS. Last month we got someone out of red for the first time in months :)
@Qwizical-ING I LOVE THAT!!!! do you have a direct link to the page that will be hosting the stream, that we can use? That way I can find it again, or even direct people towards it? Thank you
You can follow me on Twitter @QwizicalQwak (twitch is linked on my bio) and my twitch channel is /QwizicalQwak. Like I said everyone is welcome and we all want to help people get more good quality wayspots accepted. The live stream will start October 3rd around 3:30pm BST :)
To be honest I was hoping for more expansion on the trial.markers, its pretty much just how hat is already said in the guidelines, was hoping more clarification on
1. Ones that are on trails but are made to look like street signs
2. Stickers, which are what is used a lot in UK
3. Discs that aren't on poles but are on street signs or fences but are legit
Pregunta, porque no darle otra oportunidad a los que no pasaron la segunda prueba, creo que se lo merecen no.. Xq no veo justo que den solo 2 prueba
Indeed, Casey said that "installations" could in some cases be allowed. However, what you have is not an installation; it's a more interesting equivalent to the Target bollard. Now, if somebody made a sculpture with the Royal Farms chicken balancing on a Target bollard with another bollard teetering on its head and the Wawa goose tattooed across its chest, that might actually be wayspot worthy, but a simple mass-produced object isn't.
For those outside the area, Royal Farms is a regional convenience store/gas station chain with more than 200 locations in the Mid-Atlantic. It is headquartered in Baltimore city in an old building that has an architectural feature as a portal and is popular for its rancid-smelling chicken. It also has giant rooster statues at many of its locations. The OP's submission was one of these and it was not part of an "installation".
Unique statues and art at businesses are, of course, allowed. Generic corporate art isn't. That is also in right there in the help section:
Under the image of a Target bollard it says: "While this decorative parking bollard may be visually appealing, it is a mass-produced object."
So you're saying your trail markers in national parks shouldn't be allowed because they are too many trail markers in your opinion?
Not, that's not in fact what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is nothing specific about that particular sign that ties it to one place and makes it unique. Real trail markers are very specific. Others might disagree about these types of signs, and I respect their different opinions, but I am also explaining why some will reject them in good faith.
The route used by Franklin Scott Key for his route he used in the war of 1812 has no significance when he was the poet for said song? This is why you sound like a babbling idiot.
Way to keep the conversation civil! I hope you don't get this thread locked.
Huh? A normal person would stop his or her car on the side of a busy highway, and hop right out to access a grass median ****? I'm not even sure that's legal.
There is a huge difference between that and a sports field in a park. Parks can be safely accessed by people on foot after they have walked there, parked legally, gotten off a bus at a bus stop, etc., etc. The only way to access this sign is, as I said above, to pull over on the shoulder of a highway and leave one's car there.
There doesn't necessarily need to be a sidewalk or path for something to be considered accessible. Can you reach it on foot without putting yourself in physical danger? If no the Wayspot would be ineligible.
That is directly from @NianticCasey-ING and in the thread you've mentioned before.
Additionally from Mr. Krug.
Safe. Pedestrian. Access. This is not safe vehicle access, safe cyclist access, or any other access. Pedestrian. Adventures on foot.
If you cannot reach it without needing to play a game of "Frogger" with traffic, it is not eligible.
I'm tempted to email the local government, parks and rec department, and literally ASK if this is a spot they intend for people to be walking around on. And if it's okay to cross that highway, or, park on the side of the highway along the field. We will see if anyone answers me.
I have emailed the Parks and Rec department, posing the question as someone visiting friends in the area. I asked if people were allowed to go onto that grassy area and take photos with the sign, and, if it was part of a walking trail detailing local history. I likely will not get a reply until Monday but hopefully I do, and we can settle this! I will post a screen s.h.o.t. of my email once I get a reply, so as to not get accused of trying to lead the person to a certain answer. I will certainly post back as soon as I hear something.
@spiesr-ING you are likely correct. But I'm curious what leaps of logic will occur if the city itself states it is not an area meant for pedestrians. Morbid curiosity I guess?
I have worked in a hospital system for decades and the Hospital ruling is ridiculous. Having a player piano might interfere with essential services - but we have one, right in the middle of a large PUBLIC lobby. We have billing offices, places of worship, museums and historical displays that are meant to be enjoyed by the community at large. Hospitals are businesses, after all. I agree that PATIENT CARE areas (inpatient units, operating theaters, emergency departments) within a hospital should be ineligible but if ample evidence is provided for a point of interest in a public area that just happens to be inside a hospital does not interfere in any way with patient care or emergency services, why should it be automatically ineligible?
In less Covid-fraught times, it's not only patients that come to a hospital. It's visiting family, waiting for a surgery to be completed. It's guest lecturers at one of our many large conference rooms named in honor of notable care providers. It's shoppers at our gift shop or relatives dining in one of our cafes. Past patients get financial counseling, job applicants fill out forms, the local pizza guy brings sustenance to the busy unit staff, vendors come to meet with business managers to tout their medical products or pharmaceuticals. Our primary hospital has two strictly-outpatient buildings attached: do the waypoints inside automatically get rejected too?
Why do health care workers not have the same "limited-access" type of waypoint to interact with on their breaks or shift end that industrial workers may have? Are they less important? I would think that, now more than ever, Niantic would be stepping up to make our health care workers' lives more pleasant instead of ruling against any safe, public POI because of an illogical rule. Unlike most industrial and other types of workers, most health care personnel cannot leave the grounds for lunch. They may be subject to conditions where they cannot leave at the ends of their shift, such as in times of inclement weather. As an IT worker in a health care setting, I've been compelled to work a 30+ hour shift myself during severe winter storms. Having a waypoint or two inside campus would definitely be preferable than staring outside, looking at a local park, salivating over the twenty waypoints at twenty identical baseball diamonds that in Niantic's mind are so much better than the dedicated artworks in our spacious lobbies.
I agree about the hospital clarification. I live near a world renowned hospital that has a LOT of art displays. They actively encourage people to come just to see the art (pre covid). Their website even has a brochure map of all the art exhibits throughout it. Thankfully it's already full of POIs and has been since before PoGo. But I really hope they dont get reported.
Also, any patient that stays at a hospital for several days would enjoy to keep on being able to catch pokemons. Anything that can bring a little joy to a person suffering any illness is good.
In our city there is a wonderful POI that was once the centerpiece of a downtown shopping plaza. This object was moved to the local airport, past the security gates, once the plaza was demolished. In time, it was again moved to the Children's wing of a local hospital to provide enjoyment to hospitalized children and their families. The object itself was large and would not have been placed near "emergency services" because the object itself draws a crowd at least once per hour. It's a beloved part of this community and I'd hate to see it removed from the network because Niantic can't see gradations within a single type of building. https://youtu.be/2yLKkxq0dH0 shows how important the Clock of Nations has been and continues to be in this area.
K-12 schools are excluded including school grounds to protect children and to comply with the laws doing the same. Hospitals are excluded only to avoid interference with emergency services, which take place in only a small sector of most hospital buildings. I believe this guideline should be reviewed. If a spot in a hospital building can be adequately shown to pose no obstacle to delivery of these services, why should they be blanket-rejected? Should all indoor wayspots be rejected because we can't adequately demonstrate that those POI do not sit too near fire doors, extinguisher/hoses, or AED stations?
All I would ask for is the chance to prove that candidates within a hospital building be considered eligible if they can be proven to be placed in safe locations. I'd certainly look for for good supporting photo, hyperlinks to campus maps, photospheres, and other supporting detail.
If you read the answer Niantic gave in this very AMA you can see that rule rule about hospitals is intended to cover Wayspots that could interfere with ANY type of hospital operations, not just emergency ones.
Back on hospitals- I actually think it's kind of silly/contradictory that POIs outside the building are fine. In total honesty, for my local example, the outdoor ones are the problematic ones. People try to stay in their cars to access them and idle in no parking lanes. The ones within the hospital require you to get off your bum and actually walk 😂 Employees typically spend lunch breaks walking a lap around the hospital, (during winter/rain, they walk inside the hospital). It has several outdoor walking trails.
I recognize the hospital I'm talking about is not typical. Dozens of sculptures, statues, paintings, exhibits, etc by prominent artists. 3 cafeterias, several gift shops, etc. Memorial gardens. Fountains. It is utterly massive. Historic plaques.
The ER probably makes up about 5% of the hospital. The rest of it houses mainly doctors offices. Primary care, eye docs, physical therapists, cancer treatment, a children's cancer ward, and every single specialist in existence (truly). The overwhelming majority of it does not involve any kind of emergency services or urgent matters.
For things that people are encouraged visit/interact with, I feel using close scrutiny and common sense should be allowed. If it could be demonatrated that the location would not interfere with emergencies or hospital operations. After 4+ years of PoGo, the hospital would've complained by now, yet they have not. The staff there have their own section of the local discord since so many of them play (at least 75-100 people). PoGo is well known throughout the hospital.
All this rambling to say- I disagree with a blanket ban. I feel like we should be able to use common sense like most other categories.
I'm not upset that hospitals are ineligible. I've never nominated a hospital. I'm upset that individual points of interest, designed for public enjoyment, placed in public non-clinical areas, far from patient care areas or medical thoroughfares, should be deemed as "obstructing emergency services" when it can clearly be demonstrated that they do not. The burden of proof of that fact should always lie with the submitter, of course, but hospitals are not just emergency services. They are vibrant communities in the public domain, and should logically be treated the same as any limited-access business. To do otherwise penalizes the Wayfarer network, denying it of some great POI, and penalizes our health care workers who quite frankly could use a bit more support in these times. Why should a museum of medical history exhibit such as those placed in the lobby of our hospital near the cafes and gift shop be treated as a less public object than a POI in the middle of a factory complex in Minsk where only a very few people have badged, secured access?
So parks and rec emailed me back. The person on the email said that kind if info was not in their wheelhouse. They gave me a phone number to call for the right person. I'll call this afternoon but I'm a little bummed that it won't be in writing. I'm sure I will be accused of misinterpreting or lying. I will write down their response word for word.
UPDATE: For the purposes of this matter with the sign/grassy area, I have now been referred to email someone with the state, as this section of land is state maintained/owned. Hopefully I will get an answer in email to avoid additional doubt/debate.
Maybe ask the state officials if there would be any problem having a group of 20+ people to gather there for an event, such as (perhaps) a bit of rugby scrimmage. Because that's the sort of activity you're allowed to do (without being arrested) at any public parkland, when there's no signage about the park with the DO/DO NOT rules list.
Good point. I have started by asking:
If it is ok for people to be on the grassy area to, say, take a photo with the sign.
If it is okay to park along the grassy area, off the side of the road to access it. And if not, where they suggest parking.
And if it's a part of a walking trail.
If they DO allow people to walk in that grassy area, I will follow up with if it's a park area/what the rules are.
September AMA has been pushed to the criteria page (I don't believe it was this morning). https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?s=wayspot-acceptance-criteria&f=niantic-wayfarer-september-ama&l=en&p=web
Thank you for that, @NianticCasey-ING, and for performing some well needed cleanup in here.
Thankyou for posting these answers, and also for cleaning up the thread, it was hard to read all of the key points the last few days...
I thought that some of the answers didn't really go beyond what was already published, so maybe in future it would be nice to see some examples to support the statements around eligible/ineligible versions of a kind of waypoint for example bridges or trail markers, and with the wayfarer team's reasoning for this? It might help us to understand the reasoning and apply this to our own reviewing. Aside from that this was really helpful!
On the subject of hospitals..
I would say our hospital is very similar to the ones described. It has artwork and plaques along the widest corridors, and quite a few courtyard style gardens for patients and visitors to sit in, often with statues and other artwork.
One of these gardens with statues in it was recently approved as a waypoint. It's almost at the opposite end of the hospital to the emergency area and is completely inside the hospital buildings (it's only accessible from the hospital corridors, not from the street). I think it was a really good waypoint, honestly, because it is not in anyone's way, being inside a garden area, and it won't encourage any members of the public to drive near to it because you can't get a car anywhere near to it. It is just there for patients and staff, which I think is fine. It is really nice to have a waypoint to interact with when you're waiting at a hospital, because you're typically both bored and stressed at the same time and it's nice to have something to do.
I do think that these waypoints are better suited to being the type of in game waypoint where groups don't need to gather (ie. not a gym, fortress or similar) but I don't see an issue with someone sitting in the garden waiting for their appointment and interacting with this waypoint quietly on their own.
I hope people don't interpret this as artwork in the hospital gardens is also ineligible, because I think this sort of thing is a sensible and safe waypoint. And from my interpretation of the AMA this would still be OK because it is not going to get in the way of staff moving patients around the hospital and is not actually inside.
Do I have this correct? For future reference?
Considering my comments about emailing the parks and rec department were left up, I will make one final comment with the response I got. (For those that missed the whole debacle, in short there was a debate about whether a specific submission had safe pedestrian access). Copy and pasted directly from my email (emphasis added)
"Hi [real name],
The 1814 Battle of North Point sites are recognized along the National Park Service Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail. There is interpretive signage along this route.
Have you visited Battle Acre Park and the North Point State Battlefield along Old North Point Road- near Trappe Road?
*Standing near the North Point Boulevard sign is not a good idea. It's not a safe location.*
Before the pandemic, the community commemorated the battle during several public events each September.
If you have specific questions, let me know.
I’ve done my best to collect some of the follow-up questions from the AMA that I have immediate answers to.
How far should trail markers be from one another to be considered unique Wayspots?
Any legitimate trail marker would be eligible so long as there’s enough distance between it and another to consider them separate locations. Each app has its own inclusion criteria and will add Wayspots (or not). The important thing to consider is that each individual Wayspot is as accurate to the real-world location as possible.
Working on it! It has bloomed into something larger than my contributions alone can support but you’ll start to see @NianticEG and @NianticGiffard in here more often.
I know it’s frustrating, and that there could be of benefit to folks who are in a hospital to have Wayspots nearby so they can continue playing, but our priority is not to interfere with medical professionals doing their jobs first and foremost so when considering Wayspots at a hospital, please avoid locations where gameplay would get in the way of medical professionals and other essential workers at the hospital. In other words, if a Wayspot could in any way interfere in the operation of emergency or essential health services, it’s ineligible.
Eligible vs. Ineligible
Although the conversation is largely gone, I wanted to clear up what I mean when I say something is “eligible” or “should be accepted.” Think about “eligible” meaning “eligible to be reviewed further and not rejected based on this single aspect”
You should still review every Wayspot according to all guidelines:
I have also gone in and cleaned up the discussion, apologies for letting it get derailed so significantly as I have been assisting with some of the upcoming Wayfarer releases.