Criteria for apartment signs or housing developments?
SookieIlych-PGO
Posts: 50 ✭✭✭
I just got a review for a sign of the name of an apartment complex at the entrance to the complex’s driveway. On first blush it doesn’t clearly violate any of the criteria and it’s visually distinct, but my gut is telling me that an apartment complex sign isn’t a good poi.
what’s the general principle on these? screenshot in the next post so this thread can go up right away
Tagged:
Comments
These are generally rejected, as they do not meet any eligibility criteria unless they are particularly artistic or unique in some way.
Eu não avaliei então não tô aprovado
As Eneeoh-PGO wrote, these aren't eligible unless they're really unique and artistic.
This one doesn't met criteria, and should be rejected.
Apartment complex sign, same as a housing development/community sign... 1* reject. Whether is just ineligible, PRP, Pedestrian Access, depends on how im feeling but its a 1* either way.
BUT an apartment complex/housing community clubhouse... That is good. Its a great meeting place, full of activities and things to do with people.
Hi All,
Thank you for providing feedback and contributing. Loving the positive interactions in the community! Keep it up :)
I know this is an old conversation, but I wanted to add my two cents. I live in an area that is almost all communities with some type of sign like this. Long before I started reviewing many signs in my area are waypoints. Since they are not on private property and usually alone sideway or bike paths they do promote exercise, therefore I generally accept them.
You should not be doing that, you should review according to the current criteria and guidelines not by what POIs are already in game
In my area hosting communities are generally areas with narrow roads, little traffic and frequent green areas with playgrounds and picnic tables.
I see these as a great place for exercise and being social, so I'll accept it as long as it's not a walled community.
Being in a gated community isn't a reason to reject things like playgrounds and parks. They're still perfectly eligible
The signs that this post was initially referencing do not normally meet any criteria though.
Theres a fair number of these that were accepted in the past and they aren't inherently ineligible. But just because something isn't ineligible you have to make a case for why it fits the 3 current criteria.
Place to Explore
Place to Gather
Place to Exercise.
Generally speaking, these type of signs don't fit the exercise or gather category. Other place inside the community like a Community Center or Playground might. But the entrance sign.... wouldnt.
Place to Explore is really the only one that might fit a sign. ((Even then it won't fit most))
1 way) If the sign, or area was artistic enough: Usually I think of it this way, the stop/gym/poi is visible in game from a decent distance ((beyond interaction distance)) is it unusual enough that someone clicking on the photo might say "Hmmm I wonder what that looks like up close" ... or someone walking their dog would stop to admire it... that's explore worthy.
2 way) you'd have to have a great description about the community itself that encourages people to explore it, maybe for residence. Some cities have areas that become known for "Artists" to move in. or Musicians...
Mind you both ways would be hard sells, and probably take multiple submissions, but the signs aren't defacto ineligible. They just aren't generally eligible.
PS: This is why I dislike 5 star current system. 1 Star should only be for Inelgible and for specific reasons (Such as Private Property) . 2 Star should be for "No" it just doesn't meet eligibility. It would be better for a simplier 4 level system
1: Banned Location
2: No. Doesn't satisfy criteria.
3: Yes. Satisfies Eligibility Standards
4: Yes. Exceptional submission that can be used as premium example
If this is a gated community where you would be chased away by a security guard if you come to play, then it's ineligible.
The sign itself is just a placemarker. What matters is if this is a great place to go and play and explore. Maybe it is, maybe it's not.
If this is a gated community where you would be chased away by a security guard if you come to play, then it's ineligible.
No.
It doesn’t matter if you can access it, just that someone can access it.
«...or behind locked gates so long as there wouldn’t be objections to you entering the area and the location is accessible to some folks»
If members of the public are denied access, then I see that as an objection to enter the area.
If I try to get into Disney World without a ticket then I will be chased out by security guards. This does not mean Disney World is not allowed to have pokestops. The idea is that everyone should have access to at least one waypoint not that everyone has access to all waypoints. Anyone living in that community or who makes friends with someone there has access to those waypoints. Mountain top markers are great waypoints for exploration and encourage people to go out on a hike but most are not accessible to people who can not walk.
Public accessibility doesn't mean everyone has to have access to the location. So long as some of the public can access the location, it is acceptable. Those who live in a gated community are part of the public and they have access to locations within the gated community without objections.