Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/

Unsuitable grave nominations?

13

Answers

  • Rostwold-INGRostwold-ING Posts: 172 ✭✭✭✭

    No, @Gabriel0322-PGO you can't twist "Avoid nominations whose real-world locations appear to be cemeteries, burial grounds, or gravestones" round into meaning the exact opposite!

    If there's a trail marker in a cemetery then it's location is a cemetery, so you need to avoid submitting it!

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Google is not mentioned at all, and under location accuracy it suggests using other sources.

    Your point is what exactly?

  • Dice3423-INGDice3423-ING Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    Okay. So when do you start to question the submission typically each review, what part of the review process?

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Make your point or don't, im not answering pointless questions or stringing this thread/discussion out more than necessary

  • Dice3423-INGDice3423-ING Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2020

    It was easier to answer the question than it would to type that.

    Post edited by Dice3423-ING on
  • Dice3423-INGDice3423-ING Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    Notice this AMA Answer previously to help support war memorial individual plagues in cemeteries for graves that do not have human remains.

    January 2019.

    Q24: The ingress OPR reviewers guide says to 1-star memorial benches, plaques, and other types of memorials for non-distinct individuals unless in a portal-sparse area. However, the "What makes a high quality pokestop" guide, (Which is the only current non-level locked POI guide publically available) there’s no mentions about the current OPR guidelines about memorials for non-notable members of the community. Under the section about gravestones/cemeteries, it’s says to approve memorials that isn’t a burial area. Is this a sign that Niantic changing it's stance on memorials for POI submissions?

    A24: Thanks for flagging this. I’ll see if we can’t get these sort of discrepancies synchronized across products. As a result of this question, NIA OPS is considering making the OPR Help/Action Guide public. It looks like currently, the difference between the two is the OPR guide mentions memorial benches/plaques (with no other historical/cultural significance) whereas the article mentions standalone memorials (for eg. War Memorials that do not contain human remains).

  • GearGlider-INGGearGlider-ING Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,072 Ambassador

    Digging a little further, I do hope this can get clarified a little more on the next wave of Clarifications we receive.

    For mausoleums, they would follow the same criteria as other gravestones/headstones/etc. in that it should be either architecturally or artistically unique OR be for a notable individual, family, group of people, etc.

    This seemed slightly contradicting of the January 2020 clarifications that state "Not acceptable: [...] other headstones or memorials (regardless of how visually unique or artistic they are), or funeral homes."

    I hope I'm not just looking into things too much.

    Thanks!

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,072 Ambassador

    Apologies, but wanted to bring this thread to attention as it is being used, possibly in an abusive way, to justify cemetery nominations. I'd like to pull some things together, and I'd also appreciate if @NianticCasey-ING could maybe provide one last post, mark answer(s), and maybe close the thread if necessary. 


    Cemeteries or Graveyards

    • Acceptable: Headstones, statues or memorials dedicated to a historical figure, someone who is significant to the local community, or groups of individuals. For example, a WWII Veteran memorial.
    • Not acceptable: Signs at the entrance of cemeteries, cemetery directories, other headstones or memorials (regardless of how visually unique or artistic they are), or funeral homes.


    Cemeteries, Burial Grounds, and Gravestones

    Avoid nominations whose real-world locations appear to be cemeteries, burial grounds, or gravestones. Gravestones may be accepted, but only if the gravestone is publicly accessible and it belongs to a historical figure or significant community figure.

    [...]

    Memorials

    Memorials are eligible, but only for significant figures in a community or for significant events. Memorials that contain human remains should adhere to the acceptance criteria for gravestones. 

    Pulled from the Ingress Community forum:

    I have to agree with @AgentB0ss on this one. For mausoleums, they would follow the same criteria as other gravestones/headstones/etc. in that it should be either architecturally or artistically unique OR be for a notable individual, family, group of people, etc.

    When it comes to the "groups" clarification, this is in reference to memorials or monuments in that they're often dedicated to groups of people (i.e. WWII veterans, victims of 9/11, etc.) rather than one specific person or family. [Casey's Family Mausoleum] wouldn't be eligible unless Casey was a person of local notoriety.

    Just because it's a mausoleum doesn't mean it's eligible unless there's something there to set it apart as being unique and relevant to your community. Hope that helps!


    From another thread within this site:


    And lastly, in this thread itself: 


    Somebody shared these nominations in a chat I am in. They seem to imply that this discussion justifies eligibility of these nominations, when in fact this thread is awaiting further clarification, and clarification elsewhere implies they may be ineligible.

    So, for anyone who follows the links, this would be a good place to give final clarification. Thanks, @NianticCasey-ING!

  • nobbynobbs1st-PGOnobbynobbs1st-PGO Posts: 54 ✭✭✭

    It does appear that the issue appears to be that cemeteries are described as ineligible and to be avoided.

    Then separately they have described why monuments and memorials or gravestones of notable people might be considered. Presumably they mean located away from cemeteries ( like Elvis Presley). This has led people to nominate notable graves within cemeteries or other potential poi within them.

    Hopefully Casey will be along to give definitive guidance to finally settle this argument.

    My personal belief is that a cemetery is not a good place to play, regardless of any excuses or justification given on individual locations. We all know that if there's a loophole it will be exploited by people to get their local cemetery accepted. If your local cemetery encourages visitors then go and enjoy it, please don't try to get a poi. Playing a game while people are potentially mourning a loved one nearby is disrespectful.

  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The only reason I don't want a blanket ban on cemetaries is because of the historic value they add to my city. Is this just a New England thing?? We have 4 cemetaries that are preserved by the city for their historic value, and a whopping one "non historic " cemetary where people are still getting buried.


    I've gotten quite a few nominations approved. But let me repeat- NO ONE has been buried in any of these cemetaries in 50-100 years. The nominations I've had approved were monuments, historic buildings (the oldest church in the whole state is located in one of them). A number of historic graves- prominent founders of the city (people who have parks, libraries, and more named after them, prominent politicians and inventors- the list goes on). I learned A LOT about my city's history submitting these and my HOPE is that people playing the games will read them and learn something too. In my opinion, I feel proud to be keeping these people's names alive and not forgotten.

    I completely understand not wanting POIs near active cemetaries. But I really hope people will consider the historic value that some really old, inactive cemetaries have. I hope people can consider this distinction.

  • nobbynobbs1st-PGOnobbynobbs1st-PGO Posts: 54 ✭✭✭

    It's a difficult one, because I agree old cemeteries which haven't been used for 50+ years are often lovely places.

    How do you know one in Florida is the same? It's not like we're all very aware that people claim things which aren't true. Which will mean very quickly that active cemeteries have groups of Pokémon players or ingress players at any time of the day. This is already happening with the poi that have slipped through.

    So it has to be the blanket ban which already exists unless a foolproof, cheatproof method can be found to guarantee only historical sites are accepted.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭✭✭

    So for people wating a blanket ban on cenetariee because they think pokemon go players playing there would be disrespectful, what is their argument for places like the glasgow and Edinburgh necropolis, pllaces that not only invite people in, but are actually tourist attractions, have tours in them, have ghost walks in them, allow ghost hunting groups to visit them etc. These places are clearly asking people to come, so how could going in and playing pokemon go be any different?


    Amd the guideline clarifications from January clearly state that war monuments, statues famous pr important members of the communities headstones are acceptable I graveyards and cemeteries, so again, these are places people are allowed to and on certain times encouraged to visit, so there us no reason for them.not to be allowed

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gendgi per the clarifications from january, the statues are allowed. The gravestones are not though they are not war memorials. The memorial garden is one I would reject, but not because it's a memorial garden, because it doesn't have signage anywhere so it cant ge proved if it is or not

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @nobbynobbs1st-PGO there isnt a grey area, graveyards themselves arent allowed, things in them like war monuments, statues, things that are in the guidance, are. If you want it changed nothing at all in graveyards then you arent closing off one or 2, there will be hundreds, thousands, millions of graveyards all eith acceptable criteria, that you are closing off. If you want to say ones thay are active, then it's you that's creating the grey area where there isnt one (apart from people who seem to keep getting the guideline confused to being a graveyard means in a graveyard)

  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    With the cemetaries in my cases, it should be somewhat easy to see the cemetaries can't have burials any longer. They aren't very big and are completely full. I could also provide links in the future to show they are inactive and part of the city's historical preservation efforts- but with a blanket ban, lots of people probably won't even read the description and support info. They'll just 1* and move on 😕

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2020

    @Sugarstarzkill-PGO graveyards themselves arent allowed its things inside, so if there was a statue or war memorial they would be ok but the graveyards themselves arent allowed

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,072 Ambassador

    Could you remind me where it says statues and art is eligible in the January clarifications?

    I suppose the argument could be made that the statues follow "statues or memorials dedicated to a historical figure, someone who is significant to the local community," but the nominations fail to say who these statues are dedicated to and if they have any historical significance. I would argue they follow more in line with "other headstones or memorials (regardless of how visually unique or artistic they are)" and are thus ineligible. And, the first nomination listed simply says "art is allowed" - not necessarily untrue but also not a true statement overall.

    I don't really want more back and forth because nobody's minds will change and as has been pointed out there are a lot of different cultural aspects to consider. I merely wanted to point out possible misuse of this thread to @NianticCasey-ING, especially with how it fits into the other threads that have been going on.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gendgi I forgot the historical figure bit for statues, so maybe it could be be acceptable, but to be fair, it's still a statue, so long as it's not actually at or on a grave but is maybe on the side of a path, at the entrance, in a roundabout, that sort of thing it could still pass as that would then be clearly done for public viewing, I would have needed to see the map to see exactly where it was to decide if t was a grave or not

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,072 Ambassador

    Agreed-ish - context of the whole nomination is obviously needed. I'm assuming it's a statue not tied to human remains. In any way, the January clarifications will be taken to prove both side's argument: "well, it only says these things are eligible," "yea, but it only says these other things INeligible." Casey's opinion on the interpretation leaned that nothing was acceptable, per the "avoid nominations" guidance.

    I suggest reviewers use clarifications form at https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#wayspot-acceptance-criteria-clarifications until guidance is actually published without potential loopholes and exploitation.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gendgi I would say use the only acceptable things till a true guidance comes out. Unfortunately it seems niantic guidelines and niantic staff dont seem to agree either

  • Jasonwhut-INGJasonwhut-ING Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Cemeteries are not blanket no submit zones like schools or prp since some significant graves and memorials to groups are acceptable so I consider statues, monuments, fountains, and other normally acceptable poi fair game.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,072 Ambassador

    Thanks. I typically agree, but other opinions offered by @NianticCasey-ING indicate otherwise.

    I do think use of this thread in supporting information confirms submitter abuse.

    Since a new page started, I will quote the original post I was concerned about. My concern remains with people misusing this thread.


This discussion has been closed.