Visually Unique should be Visually Distinct
StayInTheBaII-PGO
Posts: 2 ✭✭
It's only really thanks to my time spent here and before this, the Wayfarer subreddit, that I understood the 'visually unique' rating actually referring to a POI being visually distinct, i.e. easily discernible from it's surroundings rather than actually unique.
For example, I would previously review play areas in parks as 5* submissions but mark them down in this category as they all basically look the same. But this isn't what that field in the review requires of us. Now that I understand that it's distinction rather than uniqueness that we're being asked for, I rate them and many other things highly in this field - after all you would be hard pressed to walk past a play area in a park without having noticed it was there!
However, the vast majority of reviewers aren't spending time here, or on the subreddit, or any other dedicated channels in which these things are discussed and clarified. They're operating only on the 'surface' information provided by the Wayfarer guidelines and, having passed the test, believe they're doing right.
I had a blue plaque (marker of historical interest in the UK) rejected today due to reviewers misunderstanding this field. I took pains to mention in the supporting info that this wasn't a duplicate submission, knowing that the nearest wayspot on the duplicate list would be another blue plaque. But it was rejected for not being visually unique. Yes, blue plaques are all circular and blue, but the text and the purpose of the plaque will vary.
Using the current misunderstood "visually unique" rating: it looks like a blue circle like the other one down the road, 1*. Using this as the proper "visually distinct" rating: 5*, because a blue circle doesn't blend in with the red brick wall upon which it was mounted.
I think we need the name of this field to be changed on the review console to "visually distinct" to give the less learned reviewers a better idea of what's required in rating that field.
Your thoughts?
Answers
I agree that the wording isn't very clear as to it's meaning.
@NianticCasey-ING echos what you've said about how the Visually Unique rating works in this post in the ingress forum.
Would be nice to have this kind of clarification updated in the criteria page on the wayfarer help page, or have "visually unique" changed to "visually distinct" on the star-rating section
This is certainly interesting, and something that needs to be made a lot clearer.
Going off by what Casey said on the Ingress forums thread that @GearGlider-ING helpfully posted (thanks, I hadn't seen that), I can still see justification to give a plaque a lower rating on visual uniqueness if it looks similar to other plaques nearby.
the uniqueness category is intended to gauge whether a wayspot is unique compared to its surroundings, as @Kaleido said. It needs to be visually distinct from the buildings and/or surrounding area and not bland, generic or hard to locate
A small plaque isn't always easy to spot, and is it really unique to it's surroundings if there are other plaques nearby?
A 1* rating for it is pretty harsh though.
I think the biggest issue here is that the criteria says one thing whilst when you're actually reviewing and resting the visual uniqueness, it states that it should be something not common in the area.
As an example, pubs generally are visually distinct. If there's say 3 or 4 pubs that bear the same architecture, say Victorian, that are all wayspots then understandably someone reading the text on the visually unique rating would rate a 5th pub that has the same style of architecture lower on that field as there's 3 or 4 other pubs with that type of architecture.
Sign has to be significant distance from the church.
Excellent point. And that comes from the current "potentially confusing nominations." Those unfamiliar can read more at the provided link.
How much distance would you consider significant then? .1 a mile? .25 mile? .5 miles? 1 mile?
Watertowers falls under this criteria?
I've seen a lot approved, and people say that is because they're reference points and big, so visually unique and stuuf like that.
I personally belive that's something bland and boring, every condo complex have at least one, every industry have one, every supermarket have one, etc
Niantic has never officially confirmed the use of S2 Cells for distance so how are you saying that is the distance required for significant distance. Keyword is significant. I am not worried about density at all not my job to care if 2 waypoints are 2 feet or 200 feet. I am worried about the rules and signs from their Point if Interest specifically mention significant distance.
However if someone has a church and submits a playground 2 feet away I don’t care that’s not my job.
All games have the same distance rule: put the pin on the most precise as possible.
How each game will use it, doesn't matter.
@NianticCasey-ING Another civil discussion. Can you chime in so the community has a correct clarification of Visual Uniqueness moving forward.