I found a lovely park, but not sure it has any valid wayspots?
Angeljho-PGO
Posts: 82 ✭✭✭
Today and went and explored a nearby named park called Regional Park, here it is on Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/qNpZJMUMToXBdztX6
It was definitely a lovely park to explore, it has two ponds with lots of wildlife, and a nice not-muddy circular path that also joins onto two different trailed walks (the London LOOP and the Colne Valley Trail).
As a Wayfarer it was my obligation to look out for anything that looked like it would be a valid wayspot to try and attract more PoGo/Ingress players to explore this area. But I could not find anything. There wasn't even a sign at the entrance of the park to welcome people in. I thought I might find some trail markers for the nearby trails as well but I didn't. It really is a shame.
Is there any chance of me being successful at nominating the ponds here as "Regional Park Large Pond/Small Pond" or "Regional Park Pond #1/#2"? There is also a bridge at the entrance which I could nominate as "Regional Park Entrance Bridge". But I doubt these would be accepted under wayspot criteria.
Should I nominate them anyway? If so do people have any advice on some supporting information I could put in which would make them more likely to get accepted? Or should I just not bother.
P.S. Have a photosphere I took whilst I was there: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5155563,-0.4811898,3a,75y,200h,80t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAF1QipPMyoklnco2B_QamY1VS6gzbEVRtEn6hvOu6g3w!2e10
Here is the entrance on streetview as well: https://goo.gl/maps/VRaeM7t53wbGHw6g6
Comments
Ponds would be Natural Feature so no.
I can’t see what criteria a bridge would meet. The photosphere doesn’t really help as there’s no tangible points for it. Lots of greenery and looks nice but nothing for Wayfarer there as far as I can see.
I think you have a good chance at getting that bridge approved, as it appears to be on a designated, maintained walking trail and visible on Street View and satellite. The ponds, meanwhile, would almost certainly be rejected as "natural features."
For any other parks you may encounter without any eligible human-built features, there was question #11 in the December 2021 AMA (https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/27078/2021-dec-ama-response-discussion). With that clarification, you could submit a designated, well-documented park even without a human-built structure. I think, at least in the near-term, there would still be a good chance of rejection, but you could at least then appeal the rejection to Niantic.
I'd nominate the bridge (use the word "footbridge" at least in the description). Then if it's Not Accepted, submit an Appeal.
The December AMA is too recent to have filtered out to many reviewers, so it could get rejected. But I hope Niantic reviewers know their own rules. Appealing is worth a shot.
Yeah that's kind of my original point really. The photosphere is really indicative of what this park is like. Absolutely lovely, but nothing that would make for a valid wayspot, which is a shame I think.
I had a look at that December AMA and this quote confuses me a little bit: "Just make sure you take a photo of the park where: the photo makes the park identifiable to someone who has not been there before. Try capturing enough of the scene so that as someone is walking towards the destination, it’s easy to spot."
I'm probably misunderstanding, but does this mean I could nominate a wayspot under the title of, say, "Regional Park", and then just place it in a location which is likely to be identifiable to people who are walking around the park? If that's the case, I think the central pond is the easiest and most identifiable feature in this park to walk towards.
bridges are valid portals.
Bridges can be valid portals. They can also be rejected. Each one has to be judged on it's own merits.
Also, there is a very small "playground" along the road bordering the park.
A pond would get rejected. 100% - no ambiguity here. Almost every reviewer will give it 1*. Some will come here and complain about people nominating ponds.
The footbridge and playground are very likely to pass. Unless it's too close to someone's yard or something.
Does this park have a name on Google Maps? Is it colored green on Google Maps? Can you find a news article or website that mentions it? These things would make the footbridge and playground more likely to pass.
The footbridge and playground are very likely to pass. Unless it's too close to someone's yard or something.
It doesn’t matter how close, if it’s not actually on PRP it’s fine.
And as we are discussing things in a public park there is no issue.
I would probably pick an identifiable entrance for this purpose myself.
I'm going to echo what others have said about the footbridge and playground. Those would make great nominations. :)
You know what, that's a good point LOL 😂
Here's what I went for with my final submission, hopefully it's ok!
Regional Park Entrance Footbridge
Description
A well maintained footbridge allowing for nearby residents to access Regional Park. Within Regional Park there are two ponds, one which can be circled via a footpath.
Supplemental Information
Please see December AMA Question #11: Eligibility of parks with no traditional physical markers (https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/27078/2021-dec-ama-response-discussion) this is a lovely park but it does not have any traditional spots which would be suitable for a wayspot. Therefore I believe this footbridge would be great as a spot as "[it] makes the park identifiable to someone who has not been there before" and "because it's easy to spot". I believe this spot would be great to encourage exercise and to encourage people to explore this park. Footbridge should additionally be visible on streetview. See: https://goo.gl/maps/EeMEhaR7tfxPNXvg8
Always nice to see reviewers just blatantly ignore clarifications made by Niantic employees on forums even when I spell it out for them in the supporting information 🙃
I don't think you needed to bring it up, that it was a park entrance with no traditional physical markers. It's fine as a footbridge to get to a trail. Especially if the trail is on google maps. (If not, you can add it, then wait a couple months for it to roll out and get views, then renominate.)
What was the rejection reason? Did they reject for no photosphere or because they thought it wasn't eligible?
I'm not sure how not bringing it up would have helped this nomination get approved.
The rejection reason was "Other Rejection Criteria" so I assume reviewers thought this wasn't eligible. The bridge is visible clearly on both satellite and streetview.
That's annoying. Sounds like the reviewers definitely dropped the ball on this one.
First can I take the time to say omg lack of signage with that level of population around significant bodies of water!!!! What are your councils doing!!!! If people get into trouble you dont have any reference points to say where you are.
Now that's out of the system....
The footbridges are worthy and so are the two playgrounds.
Reviewers have bad nights resubmit the bridge.
Your nomination was fine you just had bad luck.
Maybe take from slight angle for the pic. And mix it up with a simple discription.
Footbridge over Fray
Located near Wraysbury Drive on trail winding through Regional Park
Encourages exercise.