Nominations with a sign that is already a Wayspot
patsufredo-PGO Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭✭✭
Yes, the sign is the Wayspot. Should it marked as duplicate?
Because of the previous guidelines about sign for an object that is already a Wayspot, many submitters in my country would nominate its sign first, then after it went approved, they nominated the object to avoid the nomination (the object) marked as duplicate. As example:
You can see that the nomination is an historical site, but its sign is already a Wayspot. The distance between both of them is about 40m.
We will have to wait for the Word of God to be certain, but I think a good way to interpret the rules is to use the main rejection criteria:
The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
If the sign is merely the name of the thing or place, then it's not visually unique or interesting. It can serve as a placemark -like with a public park or the start of a trail- but it doesn't have any merits on its own, but otherwise is no different than a street sign. So either the real thing OR the sign should be submitted, but not both separately.
Now, if the sign not only informs of the name, but also contains complementary information (historical context, biography of the creator, explanation on how the thing works...) then it has intrinsic educational value separated from the monument/art piece/historical site... It fulfils the "A great place for exploration" eligibility criteria by itself:
Somewhere or something that tells the unique story about a place, its history, its cultural meaning, or teaches us about the community we live in.
In that case, both the sign AND the real thing can be submitted.
Yes, this should be marked as a duplicate.
But the sign is already become a Wayspot, in this example. I don't even know the description of that sign Wayspot.
In the past, it was said that an object and the sign for the object could be 2 separate wayspots, if they were a significant distance away from one another. They never specified significant distance however, and that was before the Wayfarer 3.1. I would mark this as a duplicate.
Folks, not all guidance was thrown out the window. Wayfarer > Help > Wayspot Review FAQ (https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#wayspot-review-faq)
Should the sign for a Wayspot nomination be marked as a duplicate if there is already a Wayspot for the object the sign represents?
If the sign is a significant distance from the object then it should be considered on its own. If it is close, such as with a church sign and a nearby church building, then it should be marked as a duplicate.
Public access at https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/?s=how-to-review-wayspots&f=wayspot-review-faq&l=en&p=web
"Significant distance" is subjective. Please note that some signs may be eligible on their own for content and/or art.
At least it is now worded in such a way that signs are not "automatically eligible" as long as they are far enough away. They still have to meet the eligibility criteria on their own absent of their association with another Wayspot.
But the question OP has it "what do you do when the sign is already a Wayspot and someone has now nominated the thing the sign is for itself?"
My reading of criteria would be if the existing wayspot has the title and description of the actual thing and is just using the picture and location then it's a duplicate, however if the existing wayspot is has a title of "Thing Sign" then the thing would be to be reviewed as a separate POI, and the fact that the sign wouldn't meet the current criteria on its own doesn't matter as it already exists. I think that is how the rules logic would go, but I don't like that answer.
Had to bring this up again. I was reviewing just now, and I found them again as nearby Wayspots. Guess what, the nomination somehow was approved and become live Wayspot, even though I decided to mark it as a duplicate back then:
Now I don't know which one's true here.