Ice Arena Sign shouldn't be considered a duplicate of the Ice Arena
Gobl1nK1ng-PGO
Posts: 35 ✭✭
Title of the Wayspot: Mount Prospect Ice Arena Sign
Location: 42.07615801343268, -87.91203019674951
City: Mount Prospect
Country: United States
Screenshot of the Rejection Email: Attached
Additional information: Submitted the sign as a new stop as the ice arena itself is an existing POI. This is similar to how signs for parks are considered a separate POI than the playground equipment at the park.
Tagged:
Comments
No, this would be a duplicate. A park sign represents the parks, but is not eligible on its own.
I don't understand your logic. How is a sign for the ice arena not as unique as a sign for a park? You see it at every single park where its "Local Park Sign" as one POI and "Local Park Playground" as a 2nd POI. Its the same concept here where the current POI that was approved previously is the Ice Arena (Playground) and the one now rejected for being a duplicate is the Ice Arena Sign (Sign). 2 separate POIs.
Local Park Sign is for the park, Local Park Playground is for the Playground which is a feature of the park, not for the park itself. You can even have Local Park Sports Court and Local Park Ice Arena if they happen to have other interesting features at the park.
Yes, yours is the same thing twice.
playground is not a parc.
If the only thing at the "Park" is the "playground" and we are still approving both as POI's your guy's logic is flawed. And that is definitely what is happening.
This sign is unique in that they incorporate a hockey goal into the sign as well so should have also been considered on that front as well.
There shouldn't be a Wayspot for the playground and for the playground's sign. But a park will consist of more than just a playground, otherwise, would not be a park.
Yes. Yes it should.
So you agree that this sign should be considered the same POI as the actual arena itself? Should the artistic aspect of the sign not be considered as well?
Yes - it is the same POI. No - nothing artistic about this. Same as all other nominations - the pub and the pub sign are the same thing, the church and the board outside giving the times of the services are the same thing, the play area and that nice big slide that's part of the paly area are the same thing.
I completely disagree with you that its not a unique/artistic sign. Its not a generic, rectangular sign with the name of the arena on it.
When we allow a trailmarker every mile to be a separate POI despite all being part of the same trail or when we consider 4 baseball fields all at the same park as separate POIs, its ridiculous to think that we wouldn't view a non-standard sign as a separate POI. What makes each field unique?
It does not matter what you personally think but what most reviewers thing. And based on the rejection as a duplicate and other people's comments here along with my own, it is clear that the sign is considered a duplicate for the arena.
That really wasn't an answer to my question on how we consider 4 baseball fields directly next to eachother or non-descript/unique trail markers as unique POIs. But yes the fact that you and 3 others commented here makes it official I guess.
@Gobl1nK1ng-PGO
This section isn't dedicated to appeal rejected nominations, it's meant to be used with rejected removal of invalid wayspots.
Your only possible action is to take into account the comments that people have given you and then try to find out how to improve the nomination and send it again. If you want more feedback, post in the Nomination improvement section, but get ready to hear that many people would mark it as a duplicate.
Actually, there is a valid argument to be made that 4 baseball fields that are right next to each other should realistically be one POI instead of 4. You only get one POI for a golf course, and tennis courts that are clearly part of a group are also only one POI. I know in practice it doesn't always work out that way with baseball fields, but reviewers aren't always consistent and opinions change over time.
Love how 2 people disagreed with this comment. What exactly is there to disagree with?
I think that sign is interesting enough to be eligible on it's own. As a general rule, a sign and the item that the sign refers to should be considered duplicates of each other, but a hockey goal sign is unique.
So you're expecting that you can have a church and a church's name sign as Pokestops? Nice try.
If I am remembering correctly, in the OPR days (or maybe early wayfarer days), Ingress guidance on potentially confusing nominations said
"Signs for locations/objects that are already existing Wayspots - Eligible, if they are a significant distance from the object or location. For example, a sign for a monument could be a separate Wayspot than the monument itself. If a sign for Wayspot is nearby the Wayspot itself, it can be used as a supplementary photo for the existing Wayspot."
While this guidance is outdated, it is not unreasonable that someone would have a question about this.
If the sign was unique enough I would consider it for the artistic aspect. How is it any different then having a Cross on the outside of a church as a separate POI from the church different? The artistic sign should be considered as an object similar to the cross in this example.
Invalid Appeal - Thanks for the appeal, Trainer. We're not currently reviewing PokéStop submissions. Please resubmit the nomination by improving its title/description if you feel that it was a valid nomination.