Can benefits of a poi outperform the eligible criteria
Shady3993-PGO
Posts: 8 ✭✭
As an example, here in sweden there is something called Sverigeleden which is a cycle path throughout Sweden. There are about 15 00 signs that show direction and the name. Because there are so many signs, they could be counted as mass-produced. But at the same time, they encourage exploration and exercise throughout the country. so the benefit of exploration and exercise in this example is more important than the signs are mass-produce and that they are so many.
Tagged:
Comments
When there are 15.000 in the whole country, I wouldnt call it mass-produced. Especially because every single one is different. It would be helpful if you could post a picture of the trailmarker, so we could give it a look instead of trying to figure out its eligebility by a few descriptions.
Biking trails are explicitely mentioned under the Eligibility Criteria under "A great place for exercise". Mass-produced is listed under "Doesn't meet eligibility criteria". Since a biking trail meets eligibility criteria, "doesn't meet eligibility criteria" doesn't apply.
Mass-produced is meant for things like street and traffic signs, parking bollards, street lamps, garbage cans, etc. Things that don't meet eligibility criteria.
They can look a little different, depending on where they are. some show the way, some show where you are on the trail. Here are some examples.
Actually what you've said isn't entirely correct.
It now says "Carefully consider the eligibility criteria, along with the acceptance criteria, rejection criteria, and content guidelines, when evaluating nominations."
Just because it meets acceptance criteria does not instantly mean the rejection criteria no longer applies.
And vice versa. Following your logic here reviewers would always be wrong no matter what they do:
Congratulations you have just created schrödingers submission which is eligible and ineligible at the same time.
Solution: Niantic should clarify.
these signs are mass-produced and are similar to street signs. the trail has 17 staring points and about 60 informations sign those are eligible not the the every one of the 15k signs. they are mass-produced signs and are similar to road/street signs. they are often placed together with street signs.
Yes, but the rejection criteria "mass-produced" is under, is "Doesn't meet eligibility criteria". Since a biking trail does meet eligibility criteria, the rejection reason "doesn't meet eligibility criteria" doesn't apply.
Mass-produced, generic, etc. are just examples of objects that don't meet eligibility criteria. Trail markers, playgrounds, fitness equipment, etc. do not fall under mass-produced, generic, ...
Ok that's your opinion. Where do I find this in the criteria? And even if that is Niantics standpoint reviewers could still argue that it is "limited production" and not "mass-produced". A lot of wiggle room here because Niantic is notoriously unclear about the rules.
How many times and in how many different ways does Niantic have to say these are eligible before you guys understand it...
I think the idea is cool too to be able to follow trailmarker through a country and be able to play Pokemon go along them.
Is't rejection overruling acceptance?
There are many roundabouts with nice scultpures on them.
Same sculpture or installation the side of the road or on a square would be accepted, but because there is no safe pedestrian access to the middle of the roundabout it needs to be rejected.
If I can persuade Banksy to draw a niece piece on my garden shed. Art, one of a kind, but yet rejected because it's on private property.
Not only is the idea cool it's litterally what Niantic games were created for: Getting out to explore. But apparantly still a hot debate in the wayfarer community ;D
Whatever. I give all trail markers 5* and that's the hill I will die on.
Eligible only means that you can continue to evaluate it instead of rejecting it straight away.
Eligibility Criteria: For a nomination to be eligible for consideration by the community, it has to justifiably support Niantic’s mission - be a great place to explore the world, a great place to exercise or a great place to be social. Eligibility does not mean an automatic acceptance. It only means it’s good to be considered by the community.
That is true, but "Doesn't meet eligibility criteria" does not overrule "Eligibility criteria". They are incompatible. You can't meet and not meet the same criteria at the same time. Either an object meets eligibility criteria, or it doesn't. There is no middle ground. So if something meets eligibility criteria, such as a biking trail marker, it can't meet the rejection criteria "Doesn't meet eligibility criteria".
As I said. If we apply both eligible and ineligible at the same time and don't prioritize anyone of them we have effectively created an insolvable situation that can ONLY be resolved if either of them has more weight to it.
If you reject based on this assumption you have overruled eligibility
If you accept based on this assumption you have overruled ineligibility
Schrödingers submission...
True, you have to look at acceptance and rejection criteria, and content guidelines as well. But that statement is not a blank cheque to reject everything you don't like.
We wouldn't reject a playground because it contains mass produced objects. Same goes for trail markers in my opinion. They represent the trail. Niantic being extremely vague on topics like this really allows for every possible outcome. Almost all trail markers are "mass produced" in some way. Too much room for interpretation for my taste.
yes there won't be so much exploring if all trail marker every 50m will be a poi. there won't be any exercising if everything is a poi.
Then Niantic should clarify. If 50 meters is too close then why isn't a number like this simply mentioned? Can't be that hard to add a minimum distance that is acceptable but they chose not to so I just assume there isn't.
Imo exercise >>>> mass produced. If mass produced was the rejection that overruled, then play parks would be insta rejects, as would exercise things you find in parks, or even mugas as almost everyone of them is made to look the same.
As for these cycle paths though, what I would be looking at is the pedestrian safety. By that u mean, is this a path people would also be ok to use by pedestrians, or is this specifically for cycles to use and people aren't meant to be on them
That's not how it works. Something can meet the eligibility criteria, (exploration, exercise, or social), and then we consider if it also meets the acceptance criteria (above, permanent, safe, accurate). But if it qualifies for even one of the rejection criteria, it may be ineligible. Not all of the criteria along the way is absolute black or white, and the way things are perceived changes depending on locations, so there is still some consideration to be made along the way. I do think this section is in need of clarification:
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 pictures for that section are obviously generic, mass produced items that don't promote any of the eligibility criteria, but wayfarers regularly stretch this part to dismiss all kinds of otherwise worthy nominations, even though we also regularly ignore that part for all manner of exercise equipment. .
The old "needs to have the trails name on it" criteria wasn't ideal but at least it left less space for random interpretation.
Just take a look at your area and think about how many POI could be removed if you just stretch out the term "mass produced" enough. Berlin would lose a couple thousand historic waterpumps and Great Britain all of those precious mail boxes ;D Good thing "mass produced" only applies to the things people don't like :)
Again: The title of that rejection reason is "Does not meet eligibility criteria". If we had to even think about mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting to objects that do meet eligibility criteria, they would have put them under a different (their own?) rejection reason. Placing them under "Does not meet eligibility criteria" means they don't apply to objects that do meet eligibility criteria.
At the top of the rejection criteria page it says:
Nominations and edit submissions may be entirely rejected if it meets at least one of the following rejection criteria:
That page is explicitly a list of things that could cause an otherwise eligible nomination to fail.
Ineligible location, place, or object
Abusive location
Ineligible text or description
So, everything else could be 5*, but items on this list could make it ineligible. The first item on that list is "does not meet eligibility criteria," which includes "The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." The way this is written and structured, it is not clear if other than being a great place of exploration, place for exercise, eligible nominations shouldn't be "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting." Or if it's not one of the three, it must be unique and interesting. Aot of people argue the first.
This is confusing because as @DerWelfe2205-PGO stated, ""mass produced" only applies to the things people don't like"
Ok cool. How about this: I'll create a thread in the "invalid wayspot appeal" section and just appeal half a million POI that now fall under mass produced :)
Almost all trail markers, all UK Post Boxes etc. etc.
According to the logic of some people in this thread all these POI shouldn't exist anymore because they clearly meet at least one of the points listed under the new "rejection criteria"
Sounds like a fun little project.
No, it is the other way around. Objects that Niantic considers "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting" are not eligible. Since hiking and cycling trails, and exercise equipment in public spaces, are listed as eligible, Niantic doesn't consider those objects as "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting".
Why would they specifically list those as eligible, if we are supposed to reject them on grounds of "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting"? Do you really not see that that doesn't make any sense?
To Niantic, "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting" means they are not a great place for exploration, exercise or to be social with others.
Oh, that's not what I propose at all. :) I quoted you because I agree with you. I'm not a trail marker denialist. I agree that most things are mass produced and we accept them all the time. The mass produced or generic element of the rejection criteria is confusing worded and awkwardly presented. The photos associated with it on the rejection criteria page suggest that Niantic just don't want obvious common POI.
Oh sorry I misread that ^^ let me edit my post real quick
Perhaps everybody should read the new Criteria again. Arguing that "Niantic say this is eligable means it can't be rejected for any other reason" basicly says "why bother to have criteria. Try reading the new 3.1 as a series of instructional steps
What makes a place or object eligible to be a Wayspot?
A note on eligibility: if a Wayspot nomination meets one of the below criteria, that's great! (Hooray! - a sign on a pole)
But remember that eligibility alone isn't sufficient to turn a nomination into an accepted Wayspot. (Ah-ha - best read the rejection criteria as well)
Carefully consider the eligibility criteria, along with the acceptance criteria, rejection criteria, and content guidelines, when evaluating nominations. (Yes, those green bycycle signs are actually mass-produced, generic and not visually interesting - so we can and should give them a 1* rating)