Walking path in park an acceptable feature?
donandlan-PGO
Posts: 201 ✭✭✭
Parks are listed as great examples for waystops. Individual features within a park have also been identified as acceptable, as long as they are visually distinct features. What about walking paths around the park? I'm specifically thinking about paved paths around the park clearly designed for the distinct purpose of a walking track, usually marked with the distance per lap, such as seen in this squiggly path surrounding this park:
Acceptable POI or nah?
Comments
I would say it doesn’t meet this.
Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area
Whilst it is a permanent thing it’s not really identifiable from any other path and doesn’t have a place marker on it.
From the Wayfarer Help section
Trailheads, trail markers, mile/distance markers, etc. - Acceptable, if they have a trail name on them. Simple mile markers along a trail with nothing other than a number should be rejected.
So, numbered or distance markers would not be eligable, any marker needs a trail name on it.
@sogNinjaman-ING & @PkmnTrainerJ-ING
But I'm not seeing this as a marked trail, more as a distinct feature of the park. Gazebos in parks don't need park names mounted on them, nor do any of the other visually distinct features of the park. In this particular case, it's not just a random path in the woods, it's an intentionally paved walking path. It is identifiable by this fact alone. If this walking path is anchored at a sign in the park for the path, like the "one lap is 1/2 mile" or similar, how is that different than other features of the park?
It’s just a path through the park. Nothing to distinguish it from any other possible path through there. Don’t see how it meets acceptance or eligibility really.
It could be eligible because it promotes exercise, especially if it has a lap distance marker.
WIll it be accepted? That depends on the opinions of the reviewers.
It's not just a path through the park. There are no other paved paths. It is an intentional designed and placed walking feature marked as a walking path by the "one lap is 1/2 mile" sign. It promotes exercise. It's visible on Google maps because it is so visually distinct.
We have been told that doesn't matter.
Unlike previous clarifications and small-scale changes, this is a complete overhaul of the criteria and overrides any previous AMA response or clarification here in the forum. The new criteria should be considered the new source of truth.
https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/9512/wayfarer-3-1-release-notes-new-criteria-darkmode
This is why I was asking. I believe it was eligible, even under the old guidelines, but it seems under the new criteria, this would be more eligible.
Honestly it's similar in use to a track field like you sometimes see around football fields. I see those going both ways. There's no base to it, and it equates most closely to generic infrastructure (it's literally just a sidewalk that happens to circle a park). Neither of these are explicit rejection reasons, though, but...
I think you'll struggle with Rejection Criteria 1:
Does not meet eligibility criteria
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
If this was a sidewalk connecting elements of the park, I would agree to the generic infrastructure, but it is intentionally placed as a walking path. It serves no purpose except as a walking path.
The photos for that rejection criteria are standard street signs and a "Target" door ball. Nether meet the first criteria and both are common in that you can see five more in the immediate area.
That criteria seems to have two aspects. One for a location and the second for an object. As a location, that walking path is "a great place for exercise." Just like a park that is an empty field needs a sign to anchor the POI, the base for the walking path is the sign that notes the distance around the path. As an object, I would also suggest that a paved winding path circling a grass field is visually unique, and no less generic and mass produced than a chain link baseball backstop or a paved rectangle with a basketball hoop at one end. The walking path is also unique to that area, as it is the only one in the immediate area.
It seems we disagree on the interpretation of these new criteria. I wonder if @NianticCasey-ING could pop in and offer a clarifying perspective.
I agree with @PkmnTrainerJ-ING .
A path in a park, without any sign, is not enough distinct / visually unique / identifiable. Anyone would be able to submit every yard of that path, anyone would be able to request a location edit and no one would be able to select the best location.
But it does have a sign. The distance sign would act as the physical representation of the real world location.
But it does have a sign. The "one lap is 1/2 mile" sign would represent the singular real world location of the path.
A walking trail is a line (or a path), not a point. A marker along that walking trail is a discreet point. The path may be eligible, but it needs point location for the POI.
The distance marker may work as a POI for a walking path, though the one's I have submitted have been rejected. I have no problem with the rejections, but I may try to re-submit in the future.
This Is what I asking about. I see the walking path in a park as a park feature. If it is visible on Google maps and has a discreet point for the POI, why shouldn't it be eligible? It seems to be exactly the kind of POI the new criteria are trying to encourage.
marked walking paths in a park meet the eligibility criteria:
A great place for exercise
A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces.
They meet all of the acceptance criteria:
1- Must meet at least one of the three eligibility criteria
2- Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area
3- Must be safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians (indoor or outdoor)
The only possible rejection criteria is:
The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique
But this is requires a standard of evaluation not used for any other features of the park that are readily accepted, such as playground equipment, chainlink baseball field backstop, basketball hoops, volleyball nets in a sand pit, gazebos, etc... in fact, the walking path in my example is more unique and less mass-produced than many of those because it had to be created and placed on sight. It isn't a sidewalk around the park connecting other features, it is a separate, intentional walking path. It is a unique, one-off creation.
If it is visible on Google maps and has a discreet point for the POI
Please forgive me if I missed it, but where is the discreet point? That's my big problem with this kind of submission; if there isn't an anchor of some kind, where is the POI? Wherever along the path the submitter would like it to be kind of like a soccer field?
That is a very real concern. In this instance. I would propose the trail length sign that states, "one lap equals 1/2 mile," like seen here on google streetview: https://maps.app.goo.gl/XdXYbHgLATTmL2sR8
I'm not suggesting every sidewalk in every park should be a waystop, but we should evaluate each on their own merits. The New Criteria seem pretty clear that if it encourages "walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces" it is eligible. Whether it meets the additional criteria is up to the reviewer. In my case, it "is a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, [with] an object that placemarks an area."
It is also "safe and publicly accessible by pedestrians."
The only rejection criteria that could be applied is:
Does not meet eligibility criteria
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
The first part is clearly not true. The second part is arguable, but if judged by the same standard as other aspects of the park, shouldn't be grounds for automatic dismissal, other wise we have no playgrounds equipment, baseball backstop, soccer goals, basketball hoops, etc...