It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
To get back to the tenor of this topic, another (in my opinion) good example of what is going wrong:
In spring 2021 I submitted a hiking trail which, according to Niantic's November 2020 AMAs, should be legitimate. As can be seen, this is also used by cyclists...
Regardless of whether the marker itself was the focus of the description of my nomination, which logically serves as a visual indicator for the hiking trail, or whether the description was aimed directly at the hiking trail - I received the most insane reasons in the rejections. Specific examples were that my nomination was a natural feature and was NOT made by humans. The hiking trail I nominated is mostly paved and the markers were definitely put there by people. WHERE is the problem please?
Niantic, there is a lot of work being done to fine-tune your system, which may seem OK for American countries, but Wayfarer and the entire community for the rest of the world need more precise and sometimes more workable formulations and concrete examples for the respective countries. In Germany in particular, translations that can be interpreted incorrectly cause a lot of confusion and frustration among those who submit nominations as well as the wayfinders themselves.
Nowhere did I mention that post offices should not be accepted or removed. All I said was that there were no longer any independent post offices in Germany and that, as a result of savings, these now only exist in an integrated form!
And this is exactly where it shows that people are not familiar with the structure in their own country. A post office is still a post office if it is declared as this. Whether it is in a shopping center or in a bank or anywhere else. The reviewers only have to do this once Understand! But as with the criteria, most of them don't know what to do! And now I would like to continue using the post so that the submitter can give their false rejections the best. As described in the first post, this should be a collective post for the admins be like @NianticAaron @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard @NianticGray.
That's where you said post offices need to be removed from criteria, just because your country doesn't have any standalone ones.
And since no one has linked Casey's comment... here it is...
Very good 👍🏻 because these are independent post offices. Nowhere, not even in this post, is it stated that a post office may not share the building with another institution, especially since Deutsche Post also has Postbank branches, as Deutsche Post is also an independent bank.
Because this is about DIE Post and not about post from other companies!
That's Pooja's comment, not Cassey's. But since you couldn't read the name, then you didn't read the post either. "Post boxes part of another business are not eligible". That's great. It doesn't invalidate these post offices. Sharing a building with another business doesn't mean you're part of it. We have MANY buildings here where multiple companies are hosted: Are these all a bundle of businesses, or are they independant? Have you ever visited a shopping center? Same deal. Multiple businesses, running under the same building.
So, tell us, did they mean to say "Post boxes that don't have an individual building specifically for them are not eligible"?
Yes Pooja, sorry. Standalone, take that for what you interpret it... Im unfamiliar with post offices there, no clue whether its considered standalone or not, the one in question where that comment was made seems similar in fashion but could be wrong. I placed the comment since everyone seems to be arguing back in forth with out citing official sources. The source is there, continue arguing based on that now.
I never claimed to have any insider knowledge, only first hand experience on a false claim you made.
A German non-standalone post office is nethertheless often better than an American 2m x 2m shed, that is considered to be a standalone post office.
Further a question: is there still somewhere since the wayfarer criteria overhaul again a sentence about the standalone character? Afaik this was a very old AMA, which is simply outdated .... so it shouldnt be the anchor point of such a discussion nowadays
I want to add another regional difference:
Great Britain is discussing about which post boxes are eligible and which not. While we don't even get our official post offices accepted. Not even the real standalone ones in big cities, that survived the economic changes ..... Friend of mine tried to submit the main post building of Ulm multiple times. Without success.
"I don't see why this wouldn't be acceptable, so long as you are clear in the description that you are submitting the post office and not the shop AND if the shop itself isn't already a Wayspot."
This is from Cassey. So, take whatever Pooja or Cassey stated with a grain of salt, as you have a conflicting opinion from two members of the same team (How in the hell...).
And we're back on the wheel again: Oh, this looks similar so it must be the same. Wrong. But you are right about one thing: "The source is there, continue arguing based on that now."
And so i did: "Sharing a building with another business doesn't mean you're part of it. We have MANY buildings here where multiple companies are hosted: Are these all a bundle of businesses, or are they independant? Have you ever visited a shopping center? Same deal. Multiple businesses, running under the same building."
So, the point remains that these post offices are valid, as per the official source that you quoted.
@BleedBoss-PGO The criteria and the giant pile of amendments and amendments to amendments are unclear to us because there's no unified document, plus there are lots of grey areas with broad room for interpretation. Niantic employees are human too, and they are working with essentially the same hodgepodge of information that we have. Is it any surprise that their answers aren't 100% correct? I've also had one conversation where I shared an employee's forum comment with a friend who works for Niantic and my friend was pretty certain that the forum comment was inaccurate. (I've chosen my words carefully in that sentence.)
@Raachermannl-ING I think when Niantic says stand-alone post office what they mean is an office that is operated by the postal service itself. In the US there are parcel shipping companies that offer US Postal Service shipping as part of their array of services and these companies also sell stamps, but they aren't considered official post offices. I think that is the distinction that is being made here. And no, I don't know if the previous clarifications are still in effect or not. I don't have a degree in Niantic Law, and I don't think the justices of the Niantic Supreme Court have ruled on that. The whole question of whether previous clarifications are still valid or not is up in the air. The new criteria supposedly superseded all old ones, but then Niantic reps started referring to previous clarifications as though they were still valid so ... shrug ... who knows?
What should I tell you, if I could see that the location was right, I always accepted post offices. It's like all other objects that are approved according to the criteria (for example bike lane stickers). I can't say anything about the mailboxes in Great Brits, ignorantly I would ask whether these are not mass truths? But there seems to be something behind them, because of the stamps on them.
I had a location where I commuted for seven years by walking rejected for no pedestrian access 🙄 I don't know how I personally survived all those years.
Just got a rejection because of 'visible license plate'. The kicker: There was one car on the additional photo. Great quality reviewing there.
🙏🏻 Thank you Niantic for using the reason for rejection "Inappropriate place" in such an inflationary way and simply getting away with it! @NianticAaron @NianticAtlas @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard @NianticGray
🤦🏻♂️ A sign that is attached to a lantern and is completely weathered is not permanent ??? seriously?
🤷🏻♂️ Finally grins a text box in which you can enter links from websites, especially for checking .....Nobody checks properly and uses facts that are given to the reviewers ....
🤬 Slowly it's really getting down to substance. Give me a reason why I or the player should submit anything at all !?
Seriously ... what's the forum for if you don't care about the core element!
Exactly here ......
Already tried 4x
People should shuffle that aluminum nails are chosen for the long term! You could check did info
As always, thank you for wasting my time on you and others! 🙏🏻
Niantic forum admins may not have communication degrees but there are A LOT better ways to word their responses (most responses) to A. answer the questions asked, and B. provide direction with enough grey area to allow for some wiggle room.
Since their responses carry so much weight they should be much more carefully thought out, insightful, AND CONSISTANT than they are. I feel like many of them, especially recently, are pure copy paste jobs from a script. Either answer the question, in context, or tell us it will be addressed in an upcoming AMA. Instead they poorly **** for the middle (and usually miss) with an answer that barely addresses the concerns that have brought up.
I am replying because of the initial post of seeing that rejected playground. I have always struggled more to get some Wayspots accepted in my local area than others. Good submissions, too! (Memorials, soccer fields, etc.)
But today I also had my first playground rejection. Everyone always says playgrounds are guaranteed 5* but apparently not.
This playground has a big sandbox and some small animal slides, there's also a bench, etc.
The rejection reasons I had were: Fake location and school.
I just feel like the reviewers are trolling me here.
There is an office of a K-13 school. "Volkshochschule" so maybe that triggered it? But still, this is like 150 meters distance from the original playground. Also, fake location is another **** reason, that makes 0 sense at all. It is literally labeled as a playground on maps, and you can even see the sandbox on the satellite image! Here I just feel like they are really trying hard to find reasons to reject something. For whatever motives.
Whenever I was abroad, I haven't had these issues getting completely fine wayspots accepted. They always went through first try. But here in my local area I'm having a massive hassle getting even a playground or soccer field accepted.
It sort of motivates me to stop submitting in my home town and just keep my submissions for whenever I drive on vacation.
Another thing. Since "fake location" falls into the "abuse" category, and apparently reviewers thought I somehow "faked" this (wow, I must surely have some faking skills...) would my account be in danger? Like, if more reviewers start falsely clicking "abuse" on my submissions, would I be in danger of getting a strike? With the low quality of Wayfarer in my local area, I'm really concerned about getting banned or striked even with ONLY submitting fair and eligible wayspots, just by the lacking skill of reviewers in my area, to compare a photosphere/supporting image to the satellite image. Is it really too hard to compare such images for like... 10 seconds?
I'll resubmit this again with a photosphere now, even. I really don't know where these absolutely silly reasons come from, but it is really encouraging me to just... stop. Also makes me concerned about the state of my account.
@JasperXCX-PGO Some feedback: When I look at that photo I don't see a playground. I see an expanse of lawn with what looks like a bare patch on it. I typically would expect playgrounds to have playground equipment on them. If I squint I can maybe see something that looks like a slide in the background but it's not at all clear to me.
Playgrounds have a high probability of passing if they're presented well, but from what you've shown here I don't think this one was.
That "bare patch" is clearly a sandpit, which is the largest play infrastructure in that playground. Makes perfect sense that a nominator selects that as the main focus of the photo. It is also the infrastructure that can be identified best from satellite view. Which makes it a great choice in a country where street view is severely limited.
Stop making excuses for bad reviewing.
While post offices in some parts of the world may bring people together (think of rural areas), I disagree this is the case in most Western European countries. As I see it, a post office in my city don't meet any of the eligibility criteria and this should be rejected.
i am okay with that, it is your decision. gladly people will be able to appeal this soon, and there is no information yet what will happen to the standing of people that have their decision overthrown.
@TWVer-ING I wasn't making excuses. I was explaining my perception of it with the goal of explaining to the submitter why some people might have rejected it. It's not at all clear to me that it's a sandpit though with that explanation I can see it.
When Niantic said that Post Offices are good examples of wayspots, it didn't say: "except in some european countries"
If you don't use a post office it's OK, but it should be easy to understand why they bring people together.
How can you be serious? If it weren't for the playground, one could assume that it could be a volleyball field. And although I can't zoom in on the photo, you can see a slide around the background. The proposal can also be clearly seen on the satellite image. And I wonder if you can even take it seriously when you say "The playground is not presented well enough!" The excitement regarding the reasons, as well as the object are more than justified. I don't understand how this can still be talked about badly here. It is best to ask for photos to be taken under a cloudless sky, when the sun has reached its highest point. Here, too, I like to state that Niantic says nothing about the size of a playground and that the playground is a general term for a place where you can play. This is then indicated by play objects or signs, which is why a normal meadow with the title "playground" can be a POI. And here to you too ... you are welcome to join in the discussion, but you too should not interfere and see resentment for an inexplicable reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposal. The location is right, the wayspot is clearly recognizable, requirements met ... finished.
Couldn't agree more.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not saying that I agree with the rejection. I'm merely pointing out a reason that reviewers might have been confused by it. Remember that a lot of people review on their phones so they're only seeing a fairly small view of the candidate, whereas people like me who review on big screens can see the whole thing easily. Reviewers do make mistakes, and the more work you make them do to understand what's going on the more opportunity you're giving them to make mistakes.
A photo that screams "I'm a playground!" seems like it's more likely to get approved than one where people have to squint and zoom and say, "I'm not sure what that thing in the foreground is but if I look closely I can see a slide in the background."
The easier it is for reviewers to understand a candidate the more likely they are to approve it. I don't even understand why that's a controversial statement.
I'm on my phone now and looking at a screenshot of the nomination and could easily see it is a sandbox and a playground in the background (no squinting required), not sure what excuses you are giving that could only saw a patch of land and not a playground.
I believe this discussion is missing the point a bit.
It's the rejection reasons that's not understandable for me. I have to disagree with the "this playground is badly presented" argument. My motives are exactly as @TWVer said. The sandpit stands out the most. It's clear that it's not just "a patch of land". There's even poles for a volleyball net to be attached. Would a random patch of land have a bench and a slide next to it too? And I chose to make the photo from this angle because you can clearly identify the sandpit on the satellite view too. As well as the building in the background. The only thing I could argue about is that it may be a bit too dark, but then again, I am not a weather god who can just make sunshine appear. Weather should never influence a submission. The fact is: I am mainly submitting this object to be added to the games, so if the photo doesn't have optimal weather, but is still "Oh hey, this is obviously a playground" to me, I'd still accept it, and just give the players an opportunity to make use of the "Submit Photo" feature, since that's a thing. Here's my supporting image which... well, supports the idea that it's a playground: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rid3XOrvz8nfiRyIQw1eZLUA8VUQzg6pIoUGgsHh2cm0Sg1-uIWZf6UknfvdHb4i3XAv07vsHCNGgOOYJemAKNGwbSkYbNiq9vUBHqVdnw=s1200
No one would have a dry "patch of land" behind a fence with a gate, with also a bench next to it, next to a street with a parking space.
But like I said, this misses the point. My point is to understand (well, there's nothing really to understand, it's probably just randomly selected by bad reviewers) false rejection reasons. It was fake location and school, remember. Legit question: Who would look at this submission and think: "This doesn't exist in real life! It's clearly made up to be there"? Above I posted my supporting image, which SHOULD have helped to make it clear this thing exists (aside from people being blind on both eyes). On this image you can see the sandpit, the garages in the background, even on the right there is this little shed or whatever it is, that you can see on the satelite view as well, with the sandpit on the left, it just matches exactly. You can also see the parking space lines on my supporting image, which should show the reviewers that this playground is located nearby a parking space, which also can be seen very well on the satellite view! So I don't get this fake location sillyness. It should be obvious this playground exists even for beginner reviewers.
Reason 2: School. Like in my earlier post, there is nothing even closely resembling a school nearby, only an HEAD OFFICE of a K-13 school, that's 2 streets down the road, for a school which isn't even located in this town, it's for a school in a town 45 minutes car drive further from this location. I made a graph for this. Zoomed in onto the playground, you can't even see this office on the image.
So let's analyze this.
The playground I submitted is marked in ORANGE. I marked all surrounding buildings in RED. All PUBLIC areas and streets are lined out in GREEN. So you could see and maybe guess which one triggered that reason? Let's see. The closest building is the outpatient surgery center, marked as "AOZ Hann Münden" on Maps. Entrance is from the backside. I can confirm this. (I should probably make a photosphere displaying this). Then there is a social welfare office next to this center, accessed by the street. This parking space is used for visitors and workers for this building. The social welfare office even has its own playground (covered by the trees), but I would never submit this, because it's on private property. You need to enter the property of the building first to acess it and it's fenced off. The one thing that I could see causing issues would be the police office. But 1) the police area is fenced off, and you reach the playground from the other street side and 2) this wasn't even a rejection reason (only fake location, and school). The rest of the buildings also don't fall into the school or K-12 category. Therapy, doctor, a factory and some garage building (which, by the way, is also visible on my supporting image, so much for "fake location").
My assumption is, that this playground is used for visitors of that surgery center? I know, this surgery center was a youth welfare office like 10 years ago, remember it being there from walking there in the past. So maybe if a family had some business to do there, their kids could play in that area outside? It's still public acessible though. I could just walk over the parking lot, let's assume I have 2 kids, I would let them play there with a ball or whatever, and no one would say something about "Dude, get off my property". It has a gate and it was open last time, and seems to be always opened. I can't tell if this playground now belongs to the town management, or is just some area that's being taken care of by the office/doctor owners, but it's more than obvious, that this is a place where you could go anytime, without trespassing.
So... where is the school now? All I see is doctors and the like, marked properly as such on maps as well. (Not hospitals, just regular doctor stuff, you go to when being sick, etc., so rescue paths reason would not apply too). Last time I checked, such buildings didn't count towards the "School" criteria, so I guess the reviewers that got this really... aren't smart.
@JasperXCX-PGO It's been pretty well documented for a long time that rejection reasons are often inaccurate. We can only speculate as to why but there are probably multiple factors at work. I would guess some combination of misclicks, people deliberately choosing invalid reasons, poorly-worded rejection reasons in Wayfarer, bot reviewers, a mismatch between the text that reviewers choose and the text that's shown to submitters, and Niantic doing a poor job of choosing which reasons to show. Plus, probably three other things that I haven't even thought of.
Niantic surely doesnt show the right reasons in the list. They also do not know what are the main reasons, as there are sometimes submissions that have multiple failure.
For Example my son had a submission, someone was taking the first photo from his window taking a full view of the houses in front of him, adding another photo as secondary with having even a diffrent view of all the houses, adding to that both pictures were of low quality and showed private homes.
Also the Text was totally irrellevant (My Dentist) - telling us in the text that this were the former house of his denist that he liked to much and wanted to give him a monument. also because there are no pokerstopz.
From all this you see that reviewers can have all sorts of rejection criteria. Which one to choose here? mixture sometimes?
People that have started reviewing recently would maybe like to reject with "Not a valid place". There some people just have a mixup with the option above for liquor store/Gloryhole Booth (They are the same text in german: "Ort ist unangemessen" and "Unangemessener Ort")
People that are p-d off generally by this persons might choose "Misuse"
People that say it is private single homes would choose ..
i could go on hours.
The person could get an email that this is "Dein Vorschlag wurde aus folgendem Grund abgelehnt: Der Vorschlag ist gefälscht und existiert am eingereichten Ort nicht, Es konnte nicht hinreichend bestätigt werden, dass der Vorschlag den eingereichten realen Standort wie auf dem Foto und der Kartenansicht repräsentiert., Das Foto ist von geringer Qualität (z. B. dunkle/verschwommene Fotos oder Fotos, die aus einem Fahrzeug aufgenommen wurden)."
"Dein Vorschlag wurde aus folgendem Grund abgelehnt: Es konnte nicht hinreichend bestätigt werden, dass der Vorschlag den eingereichten realen Standort wie auf dem Foto und der Kartenansicht repräsentiert., Der Vorschlag erfüllt die Akzeptanzkriterien nicht.. "
"Dein Vorschlag wurde aus folgendem Grund abgelehnt: Am vorgeschlagenen Ort finden anscheinend anstößige oder unangemessene Aktivitäten statt., Das Foto ist von geringer Qualität (z. B. dunkle/verschwommene Fotos oder Fotos, die aus einem Fahrzeug aufgenommen wurden)., Der reale Standort des Vorschlags scheint sich auf einem Privatgrundstück oder auf dem Grundstück eines landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs zu befinden.. "
Generallly, the above with "lewd activity" in German Reviews is 100% due to the fact that Niantic wasnt able to replace the words in German dropdown. People ALWAYS mix these 2 up: "Ort ist unangemessen" and "Unangemessener Ort"