[World Wide] Parks/Greens With or Without signs should be considered?
Parks or Greens come in all different shapes and sizes, some have signs saying "......" Park some don't have any signs but are tagged on maps. These parks have some play areas/sets for children to play which we are allowed to nominate with or without a sign. (Central Park Play Set / Area)
But what about the rest of the Park "The green areas" These green areas are normally used for meeting friends to play football or to have a picnic or even walk the dog. These meet Niantic's criteria of Explore - Exercise - Social.
This is my example i have shown where the two waypoints are on this park which are both play sets for children.
The middle area is all green space next to river it has some picnic benches. But it doesn't have a sign. A sign in my opinion would ruin some parks or green like this.
In my local town we have a few parks / greens that are this way. Most bigger than my example.
What's everyone's opinion on parks and green spaces like the one above?
How can we make them ok to nominate without a sign?
What does Niantic feel about parks and green spaces like the above? @NianticGiffard
Comments
As I find more examples of this while reviewing I will add them to this thread.
A great example of a park and no signs.
imo the park should be a waypoint as well as the picnic area.
If there's no need for a sign, you could add several PoI besides your proposal, including the zone at the bottom
My point i am trying to make is why can't I nominate the park itself as in the middle of the park? So it would be called in this case "Dairy Way Park/Green" Then park itself is a recreational area and its clearly a park, benches play sets etc.
And why can't you nominate the bottom park? And the mini park at the east?
The bottom is not a park its just a bit of grass in front of some houses. The main park is all one area with two play set on it (Dairy way play area & Riverview way play area) Now i want to be able to nominate The whole park which is called Dairy Way park/Green.
Other parks might have a sign saying "......" Park then you can still nominate the play sets and picnic areas. But from what im being told elsewhere to nominate this park i would need a sign which it does not have.
The bottom is not a park its just a bit of grass in front of some houses.
If I lived there, that would seem a park to me...
Every bit of grass is not Waypoint-worthy.
It's not unique.
Many of them are probably drainage areas. Building codes require that everything is not covered with parking lots and buildings - they have to leave some grass. In heavy rain, they might even become ponds. They're infrastructure. Their primary function is not recreation.
I'm not saying every bit of grass should be a waypoint. I'm saying the parks that are clearly parks should at least be considered.
This happened to me too with Prout Park in NH. It was declined even though it met every criteria. I was so confused. I just nominated the newly renovated pickle ball courts that are at the park today and it exceeds every criteria. If it doesn't get accepted, I'm gonna have to contact customer service.
Empty fields are not eligible. They are 1* rejections as “natural feature” whether they’re in a park, a drainage area, a garden, a churchyard, a prairie in the wilderness, or anywhere else. An eligible nomination requires a man-made object as a point of reference.
Not anymore it doesn’t, natural features can be accepted even without a sign just need to sell it well in the supporting information.
Must be a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area
Generally I'd love to see more (signless) parks on the game map, but the example you have chosen is poor. It's basically just an open, green area.
Exactly identifiable place so a natural feature is identifiable for instance a waterfall. A waterfall could have been there 1000s of years. A lake or a forest.
The next question is how long does it have to be the before it’s classed as permanent. 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?
A man made green area with no sign that’s been in place for years in the local community should be just as acceptable as one with a sign. Yes or no?
No.
The object doesn't have to be a sign or (in my opinion) even man-made, but there needs to be some kind of "anchor" for the area. Open green area has no such.
Natural features such as a waterfall that are already tourist attractions are eligible, but that doesn't extend to a random clump of trees or a field of grass are eligible.
ok so when you talk about an anchor I automatically think about a football pitch and where we have to anchor to submit them, around the edge or boundary. The same could work for a park with no sign? Or a waterfall? The boundary for a waterfall would be the edge of the pool below maybe something like that. These green areas and natural features are much better IMO than a rubbish ugly sign.
I’m not talking about a random clump of trees or grass in my example it’s a park without a sign.
And exactly what identifies it as a park?
In the park in my example is two play sets which are already POI but with some parks you have a welcome sign which can be a POI then a play set or two and a picnic area.
The park in my example at the top of this thread doesn’t have a welcome sign. The park has been in place for 10 years. It has 3 picnic benches spread around the park.
This is the pure definition of a community park.
Well, unless there is something tangible that identifies it as a park, you are SOL. It doesn't necessarily need to be a sign, but it needs to be something that identifies the location as a park so that it can act as a physical anchor. But rather than complain about how it is "unfair" or how the criteria "needs to change", you are better served by work with the local government to have a sign installed.
I’m not complaining I’m asking a question on a forum to get Niantic to work with the community on what they expect as the area is so grey.
ive never said it was unfair I get that signs make it more identifiable but asking a question to Niantic on here is what these forums are for.
Niantic almost never answers criteria questions on the forums.
They did on my last one about markers. 2k views and 200 comments. That was my first post as well.
The problem with this is the game mechanics and the inevitable edit fights.
Hypothetically yes natural features can be poi. If they are interesting enough.
That being said your park if it has a few benches you can possibly try to use one of them as an anchor point. How ever generally picnic tables/benches are considered mass produced and you would need to do a lot of convincing to people that the park is legit.
I get your kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place because the park itself is eligible yes but you don’t really have anything to anchor to. Ive had this problem before and I generally skip these because they are more a headaches than anything else
I like the challenge:)
Another example
Unnamed greenspace - 1*
I would go as far as a 1*. It’s clearly a park that’s enjoy by lot of people it has other poi so clearly they have players. These green areas promote exploration and exercise and to be social with friends and family. Atm I would rate this a 3* hopefully Niantic will guide us with this sort of sub as it meets all 3 of there main guidelines.