Multiple Numbered Fields
In my somewhat brief time as a reviewer, I have continually encountered nominations for various sports fields that have different numbers or letters attached to them. The basic format is "Place Name Baseball Field 2" or "Place Name Tennis Court C" or something along those lines. I'm curious what the communities opinions on these are.
On one hand, these items generally meet criteria and should meet criteria on their own in a vacuum with no problems.
On the other hand, it seems like when you have multiple sets of the same thing, it starts to become strain the "unique" bit of the stop criteria. There was one instance where I had to rate the nominations for a baseball park facility with 6 separate baseball fields stacked next to each other.
So now I'd like community input on this as it would be nice to have some clarification.
Comments
It is probably most correct to deduct stars in the"unique" category but ultimately the sports fields still meet criteria.
Separate wayspots for multiple fields are fine, though there are some reviewers/nominators that will disagree.
I usually am fine with separate baseball fields/soccer fields, but if it's like 3-4 tennis courts in the same fenced in area, I generally group them together.
My understanding is that a cluster of things grouped together is supposed to be treated as one unit, e.g. if there are four baseball fields together that's one wayspot. If there's a baseball field by itself and two others together on the other side of a park that would be two wayspots total. It's very similar to a golf course being one thing rather than having one wayspot for each hole.
If you had a park with two clusters of tennis courts you could name them something like Park Name North Tennis Courts and Park Name South Tennis Courts. Or Park Name Tennis Courts at Bob Avenue at Park Name Tennis Courts at Fred Street.
I don't think that's correct. Each baseball field is eligible on its own.
They probably meet criteria as great places to exercise and some form of cultural relevance.
But “Mark as Duplicate” is right there, especially when it comes to nominators that are obviously playing games with the pin.
If the fields are all right next to each other as part of a group, then I tend to think of them as one location.
When you want to play baseball with your friends, do you ask them if they want to head for a game at <place name> baseball fields, or do you ask them if they want to go to one specific field in the group? If it's the latter, what makes that one field stand out as a wayspot in its own right?
If there's enough distance (ie they're not all right next to each other), then yeah, have separate wayspots, but when they're all right next to each other, the directions to them are the same, and they're all part of one group of fields.
I mean, that depends on proximity to the play area.
If we’re like at home, we’d be like “let’s go play baseball at the park”
At the park, we’d be like “oh field 4 looks open, let’s go there.”
so it can really depend. I haven’t seen anyone advocating for only the park being a Wayspot for everything in it (or at least not for a long time)
If they are joined, duplicate, if they are seperate, I tend to accept. Like, if there's a bunch of football pitches, full sized or 5 a side, next to each other, those I would duplicate, but if there was a large full size, a space then a 5 a side, I would accept them
What is the Wayfarer System tasked to achieve?
To maintain a list objects and locations that represent desirable destinations for exercise, exploration, and socialization.
What is the most reasonable goal/purpose behind the duplicate/series rule?
To prevent overloading an area with small, close-together objects.
Why are there multiple instances of a ball/sports field in an area?
The sport is very popular, and various leagues, ages, or skill levels are participating simultaneously.
Do these big fields overload an area of the map?
If so, mark duplicates as you would with playground elements.
If not, accept them individually.
Proximity of other wayspots is not a criteria for rejection. Each game has its own proximity rules. You are to judge each nomination on its merit.
Some time ago I took part in very similar discussion on this forum, but it was a thread created by submitter of very specific soccer fields: he nominated all soccer fields from one area and some of them were marked as duplicate, and he didn't understand why.
There were 13 soccer fields in one place, about 4 of them were movable because two smaller soccer fields became one big soccer field sometimes. No fence or any bigger space between them, and telling them apart was possible only after seeing number on goal (OP made photospheres for each field to show it).
I also wrote in that older thread that this many sports fields should be treated more like a group, and shouldn't all of them become POI in game, but my opinion was in the minority. In this new thread I see more people that agree with my opinion from that earlier time. But still many people might disagree, and treat each sport field as separate POI. Each person has different opinion, so it's really depends on each reviewer.
If anyone wanted to see old thread, here it is: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/20007/why-would-sports-fields-in-a-sports-complex-be-rejected#latest
Maybe it also will help in this discussion.
One of the main reasons that I think that this is a bit ambiguous is the case of the story walk chapters that were on the featured stops for a while. They're technically part of the same entity, but spread out over a large area. If I remember correctly, there were more than 14 stops in that sequence. After that, I noticed what seemed like a large uptick in the frequency of these numbered stops being nominated. Recently, I've been encountering a number of stops in a series called something along the lines of "equestrian trails intersection" with a letter association. The latest I saw was "Equestrian Trails Intersection I", and that just seemed like way too much to me.
Different regions have different featured waypoints.
It should really depend on what is being submitted. First each game/sport has its parameters. Like is the field fenced around, are they numbered/lettered because teams reserve certain fields. A golf course is usually 9 or 18 holes but still considered a single entity. A tennis court with numerous courts fenced in is rather smaller ( in space and size). In reality probably to close to one another unless something really used to differentiate between each court
the argument that cluster in one area could be a slippery ****. Think of a theme park. The theme park itself is eligible and certain rides, eateries, photo ops, or other interesting things are eligible too. That argument could lead to now not being eligible.
For me, Wayfarer asks for a “unique, detailed title”. See below;
Saying “Chicago Road Baseball Field 7” and “Chicago Road Baseball Field 12” isn’t a unique enough title for me, and they all look the same.
I rate low on visual uniqueness and dupe any close ones.
Lol. The stars ****+ is S-L-O-P-E. That’s funny. I’ll use hill next time