Nominating playground in pieces?

The wayfinder in question have nominated a single playground to 5+ POIs and keeps trying to make more. @NianticGiffard



  • Huschdegudzl-PGOHuschdegudzl-PGO Posts: 55 ✭✭

    I usually Tag such things as duplicate and write in the comments that it is part of the same playground

  • reznowww-INGreznowww-ING Posts: 21 ✭✭

    doesn't help, the wayfinder in question will just stop nominating for lil by switching to another area then comeback to nominating the same playground in pieces

  • reznowww-INGreznowww-ING Posts: 21 ✭✭

    it's very clearly being done intentionally and this is not the first playground that this wayfinder nominate in pieces, take a look at the supporting photo they provided - they have nominated every single of those play structures seperately with increasing numbers for each name. Also i'd like to note that this wayfinder has a clear nominating patter aka writting adress and zip code in description. That's why i'm reporting it, since it's being done on purpose.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,489 Ambassador

    First, many existing playground POIs feature a single pieces of equipment, or may be named for a single piece of equipment even when they represent the whole of the playground. As a result, many players will think that these kinds of parts and pieces are eligible nominations when they are not.

    You're referring to the guidance of duplicating playground equipment, right? Does that guidance even still exist? I'm not finding it right now.

    Second, the criteria declaring they are not is absolutely buried and nearly impossible to find or reference.


    As a result, a well-meaning Wayfinder can easily produce a cluster like this: great and public place to play games, but actually completely ineligible.

    Very strong words, unless there's something I'm missing. Each candidate is a separate play structure, and even the previous guideline (as I remember) was ambiguous and said they were eligible if separate play areas. Intel link to the area:,21.458662&z=17&pll=55.341293,21.458662

    It's not a path I'd take nominating, but I'm also never really upset about nominations in a park or outdoor play area, meeting part of Niantic's core mission of getting people out.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,489 Ambassador

    Also i'd like to note that this wayfinder has a clear nominating patter aka writting adress and zip code in description. That's why i'm reporting it, since it's being done on purpose.

    Are you suggesting that using an address of the POI in the description is abuse? I could see that as being relevant information and even useful for Niantic games. It may be a pattern but I don't think it's the same as an identifier, such as using initials or a gamer name.

  • reznowww-INGreznowww-ING Posts: 21 ✭✭

    I'm saying that you can tell it's the same wayfinder doing these abusive duplicates because of the way they write their descriptions

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,489 Ambassador

    I knew what you were saying, I was being rhetorical. What I'm saying is I think you're stretching to call something abuse that isn't.

  • PlutoIsSad-PGOPlutoIsSad-PGO Posts: 188 ✭✭✭

    If there were rest shelters in the same park exactly where these playsets are... would you reject them as duplicates?

    Individual fitness stations in a park are OK for wayspots. It's all in their spacing as to whether they can be used in each game. If each piece of playground equipment is far enough away to create a useful wayspot then there are no issues. Each game will take care of overlap. In any case I'm sure Niantic wants every acceptable nomination in their database.

    A slide is a slide. A swing is a swing. They are different things and needn't be clumped together as a single object because one personally feels a place will then have too many wayspots. Of course there are issues to think about if they are all tightly clumped together but, if well spaced then I see no issue.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,489 Ambassador

    I saw your post and was planning on writing something up later! Thanks for digging it up. I do still think there's room for leeway when pieces of equipment are so separate from each other. When reviewing, I'll almost always accept something like a playground set for 5-7 year olds as a separate feature as a nearby (and separately landscaped) playground set for 7+, or whatever age range presented. Similarly for distinct exercise/fitness stations for adults. But if they're explicitly connected it's an obvious duplicate.

  • We have reviewed the report and have taken action on Wayspot and the 1 Wayfinder in accordance with our policies. Thanks for helping us maintain the quality of the Wayspots.

  • jes8twinmaker-PGOjes8twinmaker-PGO Posts: 11 ✭✭

    I understand your frustration. But how do you judge it if there are several poi's in a larger area? For example, in a city center or a zoo? Now take a park there you have these poi's six art statues, information board, memorial stone, fitness equipment, chapel and a playground. Would you then disapprove the new art statue? (assuming that all poi meet the criteria)

    For an adult, discovering culture poi is great experience. But for children, discovering several playground equipment is again a great experience. When judging poi's you should look at the big picture. There are many different types of players from young to old. And it should be a great experience for everyone.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,489 Ambassador

    Why? What policy? At worst, these "duplicate" playgrounds do not meet criteria, and when has "does not meet criteria" ever been an actionable offense for approved locations? Clearly, the community approved these locations, and your guidelines are vague at best on how to handle them. The person who submitted will get an even more vague email with no explanation.

    Could you at least explain here what violation was made?

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,595 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Might be the putting address in each description? My guess is, by doing that on each one, a reviewing cabal might auto accept them and that could be the abuse side? It's stretching a bit, but it could happen and that could be what Gifford is reacting to?

  • ZinkyZonk-INGZinkyZonk-ING Posts: 300 ✭✭✭✭

    I'm firmly in the multiple POIs per playground is permitted camp. We have single zoned res for miles and miles here in Queensland Australia. Which make for very poor portal density outside of the city centre. We have massive playgrounds. And we love them here. We have great weather and city councils that love spending big money on playgrounds

    This is Calamvale District park.

    Submitted the park shelters in white. Two did not make it ?!?!?! Waaaaah 😭 who rejects such clearly seen on sat view park shelters!?!?!!

    I would have liked to submit:

    50m double line flying fox (red)

    3.2m diameter disc spinner (sorta like a super charged merry-go-round.... Lol the most vomit inducing terrifying thing I have ever been on 🤣) (blue)

    Suspension log bridge (orange)

    The climbing wall (green)

    And the relatively ordinary additional five swing Pentagon structure (purple)

    These items are big ticket playground items. Not your everyday playfort next to a swings set.

    That's my thoughts

  • ZinkyZonk-INGZinkyZonk-ING Posts: 300 ✭✭✭✭

    Oh the old playground debate .... Tbh I think it's pretty weird to blanket rule one poi per playground. Places around where I live have massive playgrounds. Consider Calamvale district park in Brisbane Australia ..... key word 'district'

    Submitted the four gazebos.... two .... two failed?!?!?!? Waaah!!!!!

    Would have loved to submit individually the big ticket expensive playground items:

    50m flying fox(red),

    3.2m spinner (blue),

    The suspension bridge (orange),

    Plus some more standard playground items:

    Climbing wall (folded like a ribbon) (green)

    Five way swing (purple)

    Money spent on this playground!!!! .. it's worthy of more POIs ....

  • If it is a small park they cannot submit multiple Portals for each piece of equipment. The park should be big enough and the equipment should be far away from each other only then they can submit multiple pieces of equipment as Portal.

    Also, we have taken action on the player based on their other nominations.

  • SiIverLyra-PGOSiIverLyra-PGO Posts: 952 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm confused. In the past, when I have reported similar cases (separate wayspots for each piece of equipment in a single playground) as duplicates, all my reports were rejected. I came to think it's an eligibility thing (rejecting new nominations that are duplicate) and not a removal criteria (meaning Niantic won't remove reported duplicates; similar to graffiti or other ineligible stuff that doesn't meet removal criteria). How come?

  • Zulpha-PGOZulpha-PGO Posts: 28 ✭✭

    Well since we don't know in which Niantic game the wayspot will appear. I accepted multiple nominations in a park. Niantic sends an email saying that your nomination might not appear in ALL Niantic games. Would be very disappointing for players of different games to go out and nominate just to have it approved and appear in s game they aren't playing...

  • Zulpha-PGOZulpha-PGO Posts: 28 ✭✭

    If there is way too many like a park with up to 4 entrances. I don't accept the other entrances if at least 2 is in existence along with play ground furniture And unfortunately I feel the same when it comes to trail markers. Every turn and corner doesn't HAVE to be a wayspot.

  • DracFury-PGODracFury-PGO Posts: 146 ✭✭✭

    If the play area is that big , with pathways to each area then I don't see the harm in nominating standalone separate pieces of equipment if the distance is big enough.

    Comparing to say a park. You wouldn't just nominate the whole park as one stop ( when it includes various info boards, fountains, statues etc.) This is the same concept in the play area.

    In essence it's just making the best of an area to get the most out of it, POI wise. And seeing as games such as ingress has waypoints that close together I'd say it was intended for things like this.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,489 Ambassador

    If it is a small park they cannot submit multiple Portals for each piece of equipment. The park should be big enough and the equipment should be far away from each other only then they can submit multiple pieces of equipment as Portal.

    @NianticGiffard, it feels like that comment is in conflict with this.

    Should I consider proximity to nearby Wayspots or Wayspot density when analyzing a nomination?

    No. As long as the nomination is not a duplicate of an existing Wayspot, it is eligible to become a Wayspot. Each Niantic app has its own proximity rules to determine whether it will be included in the app.

    We shouldn't consider how close they are, or the size of the park, when determining eligibility. If those separate, not connected, play equipment are each eligible, their proximity shouldn't matter.

    Also, we have taken action on the player based on their other nominations.

    Would you be able to elaborate a little more on this, too? The person who initiated this thread claims abuse on somebody that does not seem to be abuse, but you uncovered other abuse? Or are you still saying the multiple submissions and/or use of the address of that POI is abusive?

  • The nomination was rejected by the player community and while checking the submitter's nomination we found out some bad nominations from them so we took action based on that.

    Now going to your first query, this nomination is quite far away from one another piece of equipment hence it can be accepted. As you shared if the Wayspot is in close proximity and connected, it should be duplicated.

  • B00JL5YI7G-PGOB00JL5YI7G-PGO Posts: 244 ✭✭✭

    When will there be any corrections regarding the differences between what is said in the standard and what is said here?

  • reznowww-INGreznowww-ING Posts: 21 ✭✭

    there is no differnece between standard and here, if in 50 meter radius of playground area you are trying to make 10+ waypoints, that's abuse.

  • rodensteiner-INGrodensteiner-ING Posts: 1,686 ✭✭✭✭✭

    i think this should be closed now, there is nothing more to say.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,595 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Does this mean, for example, if there's a play park with the usual equipment, but a zip line thing (forget the actual name) next to it, the zip line could be its own thing as its a bigger piece of equipment or would it still be considered duplicate?

Sign In or Register to comment.