"Strategically placed to provide advantage"

Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,359 Ambassador
edited December 2020 in Criteria Clarifications

Rejection Criteria

Abusive location

Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player or collective group. Or location edits that attempt to move the Wayspot away from the object with which it’s associated (for example, moving the Wayspot to a different city/country or moving it to a more convenient location).

Any opinions on how to interpret this? The first line comes off problematic against the previous clarifications we've had that not all Wayspots need to be accessible to the general public. Nominations within gated communities can (and do) provide strategic advantages for Portal anchors and Gym control. Are these now abusive?

Post edited by NianticGiffard on


  • WandHerring-PGOWandHerring-PGO Posts: 139 ✭✭✭✭

    I think the important is the "intentionally and strategically placed". If you make a nomination whose location happens to be more accessible by some player, you're not intentionally placing it there; it's just where the POI is.

    Now, if you try to move curios in a park with little street view visibility so they're all closer to the entrance you take, or you misplace them from one L14 cell to the next to make pokemon gym spawns where there isn't enough POI otherwise, then it's not just "this is where the POI is" anymore and become "this is where I'll pretend the POI is because it's more convenient to me".

    Personnaly I think these are empty words aside from the most obvious cases. More often than not it's impossible to assess the intent behind a slightly misplaced POI. Is the submitter trying to make sure the spot appear in a densely populated zone or did they just left the pin where they opened the form? Plus -and it might not be professional to say it but whatever- as long as the apparition of new spots in one's game of choice is the only reward people get from submitting quality POIs, I'm not gonna penalize them if they go the extra mile by using layered OSM tools and place the pin 2 meters to the left instead of dead center on the nomination so it's far enough from another spot/in the next L17 cell. It's within standard GPS precision anyway and as long as it's not ostensibly off (like, 20 or 50m off or so) or put people in danger, I think it's a fair trade-off to leave people a bit of wiggle room.

    Conclusion: I understand the criteria as "don't mess with POI location to gain personal advantage. If the exact location is favoring some players, that's simply how things are and there's no strategy involved." Practically however I understand we're not robots, Wayfarer is an ungrateful system at times and the tools at our disposal are inherently imprecise, so I would use personal discretion when it comes to placing the pin in a 2 to 5 meters radius around a POI.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,759 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think this means either (1) purposely placing the Wayspot in such a way that it will appear in a particular game and (2) placing the Wayspot where it will typically be out or reach of other players, when it can be placed in a more accessible location while still remaining accurate.

  • donandlan-PGOdonandlan-PGO Posts: 201 ✭✭✭

    Why not just place the POI where it actually is when possible, or where is most logical for access and if it works for the game great, if not, thems the breaks? If you're intentionally doing anything else, it's abuse.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,359 Ambassador

    Interesting idea behind it. Notice this is under rejection criteria, not simply criteria for when it is appropriate to move the pin.

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

    I asked myself the same thing. What I assume what wad meant is:

    Basically the location must be with the object or very few feet away from the object.

    Placing the location to a suitable place for everybody is OK: you take a picture of a swing in the playground, nominate the playground, and set the pin to the corner of the playground where a group of players can meet without disturbing the children.

    Similar situation: an athletic field is next to an appartement complex. You have the choice to place the pin to a corner where everybody can access the wayspot or to a corner that is only accessible to residents of this appartement complex. It would not be OK to choose the location with limited access.

    I am not sure what it means concerning gated appartement complexes. It reads like "no" if the spot is in the middle of the complex where public players cannot reach, but residents can. This would be a change in guidelines.

    Would be great to clarify this issue.

  • ElfFromSpace-INGElfFromSpace-ING Posts: 40 ✭✭✭

    Yes, I've just seen an argument on another forum about the definition of this. People are coming back to interpreting this as banning wayspots in areas like resorts that have access limited to paying guests. This is not clarified anywhere in the new criteria that I can see, and we really need to have access spelled out again so that there will be unity on wayspots such as this gazebo of mine that I waited over a year to have just get rejected for having "no pedestrian access"

Sign In or Register to comment.