Arguing that "becaise Niantic say things are eligible mean we can't reject them" basicly says "nothing can be rejected". Perhaps everybody should carefully read the 3.1 criteria again and treat them as a series of instrictions rather then just stopping at the first line.
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 ! Could indicate a great place for exploration)
But remember that eligibility alone isn't sufficient to turn a nomination into an accepted Wayspot. (Ok - better read the Rejection criteria)
Carefully consider the eligibility criteria, along with the acceptance criteria, rejection criteria, and content guidelines, when evaluating nominations. (Ok, these green bike signs are all over the place and are mass-produced, generic [ie all the same], and not visually interesting. Give them a 1* for not meeting criteria)
So you believe that every POI must fit one of the three main categories AND not be "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting"
"Exercise equipment in public spaces" is specifically listed as an example of eligible.
They are mass produced, generic, not visually unique or interesting, and yet Niantic identifies them as an example. It seems pretty obvious that it isn't Niantic's intent that that criteria be sacrosanct for every POI.
We accept POI all the time that are mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
We have this sort as well. You can stand by one of these and see several others exactly the same. Everywhere along the trail, 30-40 meters apart. Do you mean all of them should be accepted as well?
If it meets the criteria it meets the criteria. Idk why everyone seems to need niantic to paint it black and white for people. Is it a trail marker that is accessible safely by pedestrians? Yes. Does it promote exploration and physical activity? Yes. Is it permanent? Yes. Even for the old clarification where it needs to have a name, its has a name on it. So yes it is eligible even with it being 50 within a km of each other. The only catch will be when reviewers rate on uniqueness as it wont be as unique with so many populating and then they may not pass from that.
Should we not accept any exercise equipment we see in parks then? Because they are mass produced. In fact, let's take it further basketball hoops are mass produced, does that mean basketball courts aren't allowed? Football/soccer goals are mass produced as well, and look fairly generic, should they be rejected as mass produced now? What about mugas? In Britain they are all built too look like 1 of 3 designs, should that mean every muga should be rejected now, since they are mass produced and look generic?
For the case of exercise equipment, it is the space that is eligable, not the specific pieces of equipment. The same goes for playgrounds and athletic fields.
Is it? Can you point me to where I can find this in the criteria? And why would Hiking trails be rated differently then? Isn't the trail marker a physical representation of the trail itself?
The criteria only lists "Exercise equipment in public spaces" as eligible. It says nothing about rating "the space itself". This is purely your personal interpretation. (Not saying that your interpretation is wrong but nonetheless it's interpretation). If we take only the criteria that Niantic has given us without adding our own interpretation of what it "means" just as trail markers these things could be considered mass produced.
As I said. People only apply the "mass produced" bit to things they don't like and ignore it for everything else.
If they mark the path of a bike trail, than they are a trail marker, not a street sign.
A street sign, is a sign that has the name of the street on it.
A traffic sign, is a sign that tells you how to behave in traffic.
A directional sign is a sign that points you to a destination.
The difference between a trail marker and a directional sign is that the goal of a trail marker, is for you to follow a specifically mapped out trail, intended to be a tourist attraction. The goal of a directional sign, is to guide to a certain place in the most efficient way.
So obviously there are a lot of different opinions here and since the section is called criteria clarification can we please get some clarification on this @Niantic ?
Comments
Arguing that "becaise Niantic say things are eligible mean we can't reject them" basicly says "nothing can be rejected". Perhaps everybody should carefully read the 3.1 criteria again and treat them as a series of instrictions rather then just stopping at the first line.
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 ! Could indicate a great place for exploration)
But remember that eligibility alone isn't sufficient to turn a nomination into an accepted Wayspot. (Ok - better read the Rejection criteria)
Carefully consider the eligibility criteria, along with the acceptance criteria, rejection criteria, and content guidelines, when evaluating nominations. (Ok, these green bike signs are all over the place and are mass-produced, generic [ie all the same], and not visually interesting. Give them a 1* for not meeting criteria)
Here you have more information about sverigeleden, all information are in English. And Svenska Cykelsällskapet is a non-profit association in Sweden.
http://www.svenska-cykelsallskapet.se/images/sveledeng.pdf
So you believe that every POI must fit one of the three main categories AND not be "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting"
"Exercise equipment in public spaces" is specifically listed as an example of eligible.
They are mass produced, generic, not visually unique or interesting, and yet Niantic identifies them as an example. It seems pretty obvious that it isn't Niantic's intent that that criteria be sacrosanct for every POI.
We accept POI all the time that are mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
We have this sort as well. You can stand by one of these and see several others exactly the same. Everywhere along the trail, 30-40 meters apart. Do you mean all of them should be accepted as well?
Yes
If it meets the criteria it meets the criteria. Idk why everyone seems to need niantic to paint it black and white for people. Is it a trail marker that is accessible safely by pedestrians? Yes. Does it promote exploration and physical activity? Yes. Is it permanent? Yes. Even for the old clarification where it needs to have a name, its has a name on it. So yes it is eligible even with it being 50 within a km of each other. The only catch will be when reviewers rate on uniqueness as it wont be as unique with so many populating and then they may not pass from that.
I don't like to play it personal, but there is a reason why you are stuck in poor rating. Might as well be this.
Should we not accept any exercise equipment we see in parks then? Because they are mass produced. In fact, let's take it further basketball hoops are mass produced, does that mean basketball courts aren't allowed? Football/soccer goals are mass produced as well, and look fairly generic, should they be rejected as mass produced now? What about mugas? In Britain they are all built too look like 1 of 3 designs, should that mean every muga should be rejected now, since they are mass produced and look generic?
For the case of exercise equipment, it is the space that is eligable, not the specific pieces of equipment. The same goes for playgrounds and athletic fields.
Is it? Can you point me to where I can find this in the criteria? And why would Hiking trails be rated differently then? Isn't the trail marker a physical representation of the trail itself?
The criteria only lists "Exercise equipment in public spaces" as eligible. It says nothing about rating "the space itself". This is purely your personal interpretation. (Not saying that your interpretation is wrong but nonetheless it's interpretation). If we take only the criteria that Niantic has given us without adding our own interpretation of what it "means" just as trail markers these things could be considered mass produced.
As I said. People only apply the "mass produced" bit to things they don't like and ignore it for everything else.
but they are street signs that mark the path for a bike trail. its the green sign on here:562 × 422
the signs looks exactly the same and look a lot as road signs
here is a link to how they look its the one with a bicycle on it: 562 × 422
there are 17 starting points with its own markers and 60 information signs. i believe those sign are eligible not the 15k signs that mark the path.
they are not different. they look the same ,all of them.
If they mark the path of a bike trail, than they are a trail marker, not a street sign.
A street sign, is a sign that has the name of the street on it.
A traffic sign, is a sign that tells you how to behave in traffic.
A directional sign is a sign that points you to a destination.
The difference between a trail marker and a directional sign is that the goal of a trail marker, is for you to follow a specifically mapped out trail, intended to be a tourist attraction. The goal of a directional sign, is to guide to a certain place in the most efficient way.
You can't create a thread for them until you request their removal in-game and then get an email rejecting your request.
And removal criteria is not related to approval criteria, so all those half million PoI will remain.
True. What a bummer.
So obviously there are a lot of different opinions here and since the section is called criteria clarification can we please get some clarification on this @Niantic ?