Nomination and review decisions when multiple identical objects are separated by a certain distance

tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭

@NianticGiffard @NianticVK @NianticTintino @Danbocat-PGO

The question of clarification of this criterion seems to have been left behind by the wayfarer team during the Christmas holidays, so I will rewrite the text and ask the question.

I was reviewing wayspot nominations the other day and found a nomination that I was unsure about reviewing.

I have seen similar nominations in the past, and I would like to confirm what criteria I should use to make a decision.

I thought it would be difficult to understand just by explaining it in words, so I made a conceptual diagram.

First, take a look at Figure 1. This time, I used Pokémon. But this is a concept. Think of it as the exact same object.

The only difference here is the location where they are placed.

In other words, there are several identical objects placed.


Suppose there are several candidates along the path.

If there is no sole one, it is a quality nomination that should be approved.

If you check along this road, you will see that there is a different candidate every 50 meters, some of which have already been approved as wayspots.

And if you look closely, you can see that they are regularly aligned.

Let's say that these exact same objects are 250m apart from each other.

In this case, how should we make a decision?

(1) They should be judged separately as different spots even if they have the same design.

(2) Even if they are some distance apart, they will be judged as duplicates.

(3) Rejected as a mass-produced product.

In addition, there is a reason for "duplication" in the reason for application for deletion, and I would like to know if such a case falls under deletion as "duplication".

Next, let's take a look at Figure 2.

Think of it as a diagram of a city.

Figure 2

Suppose there are several candidates and existing way spots with the same pattern, but in different locations, in the middle of an intersection or street in the city.

This is another candidate for quality that will be approved if there are no more identical ones.

The city block is assumed to be 100m x 200m.

In this case, what decision should be made?

(1) Examine each spot separately as different spots even if they have the same design.

(2) Examine them as duplicates even if they are some distance apart.

(3) Rejected as a mass-produced product.

In this case as well, there is a reason for "duplication" in the reason for deletion request, but I would like to know if such a case is considered as "duplication" for deletion.

In my opinion, it should be judged as (2) or (3), and even if existing waypoints are not deleted, many of them should be considered duplicates, but please let us know your opinion.



  • Oakes1923-INGOakes1923-ING Posts: 417 ✭✭✭✭

    Even in your example it all depends on the context. Your using pokemon here but its never that simple, instead lets use real world examples.

    Are the nominations part of a city outdoor art exhibit?

    Are we talking about athletic fields? Parks with multiples point of interest. Memorial Plaques and benches placed for prominent local figures?

    Is the subject matter a park with multiple pieces of playground equipment?

    Are these trail markers? foot bridges?

    All of the above are viewed differently based on their own context. That is the important piece you are missing in your write up. You are looking for a hard and fast rule to accept/reject things based on proximity and likeness. However the real world subject matter will differ each time based on a huge number of variables.

    While personally I don't want to see six park benches in a row, dedicated to random local residents that happened to have relatives that want to sponsor a bench as Wayspots, in the same breath I wouldn't want to reject a row of benches, monuments, plaques that memorialize the various first responders or civil servants (police/fire/emt/veterans) or famous figures of history just because they happen to be in roughly the same area.

    In my area of the US there are lots of town run sports complexes that have multiple multiuse athletic fields and basketball courts and baseball/softball diamonds, that are often crisscrossed with walking trails for pedestrian access. They are great places to get outside and play games. Why would we want to arbitrarily limit the number of Wayspots to one of each item over several acres?

    I understand the want for a hard and fast rule one way or the other but the reason that its open for interpretation is that each scenario is vastly different, even if there are similarities. I think a real world example of exactly what you are talking about is fairly difficult to find. Devil is in the details.

    Hopefully that is helpful.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    It's true that we can expect different decisions depending on the object.

    In this case, I am assuming that it is a mural, object, plate, etc. that has enough quality to be approved on its own.

    Think of multiple, multiple murals or objects that are exactly the same under certain rules along a bridge parapet or sidewalk.

    I am asking this question here because I have recently seen a number of cases of this type appearing in the screening process with arbitrary titles.

    As an extreme example, let's try to explain this situation in words with a replica of a sculpture.

    Consider that the Pokémon in the figure is a replica of a famous sculptural statue.

    Venus de Milo, Rodin's Thinker, Michelangelo's David, Samothrace's Nike, etc., if this existed alone in a local park or along a street, I think it would deserve approval.

    But imagine if they were regularly lined up every 50 meters, and there were multiple identical sculptures.

    And these have self-explanatory names.

    One would be numbered Venus B, another 200 meters away would be named Venus de Milo, and another 400 meters away would be labeled and approved as a nude statue.

    And consider that at exactly the midpoint of the 200m distance, an unapproved, identical sculptural statue was nominated as "Venus" and came around for review.

    How is it appropriate to review it?

    I think the most appropriate way to handle the confusion would be to treat the nomination as a duplicate, and then leave any one of the multiple statues that have been approved, and delete all the others as duplicates.

    However, I am aware that there are many different opinions in this case.

    So we are checking what the management thinks about this.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticGiffard @NianticVK @NianticTintino @NianticAtlas

    Hello, Wayfarer team.

    Since there is no clear response from the wayfarer team, let me give you a more concrete example to make it easier to understand.

    However, there is no existing wayspot here, so please understand and consider that.

    44.044184, 143.511383

    The stained glass style painting on the parapet of the bridge here is considered to be a good example.

    As you cross the bridge heading west from this PIN, there is a painting on the parapet of the bridge.

    Incidentally, this picture will represent a tourist spot or a major event in this city.

    Perhaps wayfinder here has experience reviewing similar nominations.

    In my view of judging, if this existed on its own, I would give it an overall rating of 3 or 4 stars, depending on the title and description.

    However, if you look closely at this candidate, you can see that there are identical pictures on both sides.

    On the left side facing west is this sequence. (I took the liberty of giving them titles)

    L1 Ganbou Iwa towering in the blue sky

    L2 Yubetsu River and fishermen #1

    L3 Shiba-zakura (moss phlox) in Taiyo-no-oka Park

    L4 A cross-country skier #1

    L5 Miharashi Farm and grazing cows

    L6 Yubetsu River and fishermen, #2

    L7 Chapel of Hokkaido Home School

    L8 Cross-country skiers, #2

    L9 Gamboiwa rock towering in the sunset

    L10 Yubetsu River and fishermen, #3

    L11 Taiyo no Oka Park and Hyotan Pond

    L12 Cross-country skier #3

    L13 Panoramic view of Taiyo no Oka Park

    L14 The same picture as L7

    On the right side, this has been changed to this sequence.

    R1 Same as L7 and L14

    R2 Same as L13

    R3 Same as L12

    R4 Same as L11

    R5 Same as L10

    R6 Same as L9

    R7 Same as L8

    R8 Same as L7 and L14

    R9 Same as L6

    R10 Same as L5

    R11 Same as L4

    R12 Same as L3

    R13 Same as L2

    R14 Same as L1

    In this example, you can see that they are just the opposite.

    Now, consider that L7 is the already approved wayspot "Stained Glass in Hokkaido Home School Chapel", and the new L14 is "Home School Chapel" and R1 is "Chapel in the Woods", which have come up for review.

    How can you best make a decision?

    Review separately because the locations are about 100m apart, reject as mass-produced, or consolidate into an existing wayspot as a duplicate?

    It would be helpful if you could give your views on which would be the correct review, as this will help us in future reviews.

    It would also be helpful if you could tell us whether we should submit a request to remove the same item as a duplicate in the existing wayspot.

    To be honest, there is a lot of confusion in the field when there is more than one wayspot that is exactly the same, and in my opinion, if the wayspot itself is eligible, it is appropriate to "keep any one of them and delete the rest as duplicates" and treat the new review as a duplicate.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Niantic has said that if the new nomination's item itself is the same as a existing item (like, two of the same statue, or park signs) - then if they're close enough to show up in your duplicates list, the waypoint is a duplicate (just like the real-world item is a duplicate).

    The duplicate map radius varies - how close/far it shows existing waypoints. That's because Niantic wants varying distances to be considered, based on who-knows-what criteria that they determine on a case-by-case basis.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 387 ✭✭✭✭

    I find this very unlikely. Source?

    A statue can never be a duplicate of another actual statue. Park signs, yes, because they are not eligible by themselves. They represent the park. So 2 signs for the same park can be considered duplicates, unless they are a considerable distance apart. But Niantic have never specified what they consider a considerable distance.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I used to collect links to Niantic saying this or that, but it was a fool's errand.

    The question posed to Niantic specifically mentioned two identical statues. The answer said the pair are a matched set, so a single art installation - even if separated by more than 20m. (The Q&A also covered identical park entrances.)

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 387 ✭✭✭✭

    Okay, fair, if they form a single art installation, then they are indeed duplicates.

  • AgentX1976-INGAgentX1976-ING Posts: 371 ✭✭✭✭

    Very much agree with this.

    Probably and example I run into is on paths that have mile markers. I have seen areas where there are markers from every mile down to every 10th of a mile. While I would easily approve marks possibly every quarter mile I think every 10th is absolutely ridiculous, I would also think on a path like that there has to be more interesting things to nominate.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭


    I still haven't gotten an answer.

    Is it so difficult to find a clear criterion when it is not a trail marker or another form of playground equipment, but the exact same object, only in a different location?

    We believe that there are a good number of reviewers who have trouble making clear judgments about such nominations.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 2,795 Ambassador

    I can't recall anything on this, so I assume you're referring to a (pre 3.1 refresh) @NianticCasey-ING clarification on multiple park entrances.

    In order for multiple entrances to the same park to be considered eligible, they would need to be either unique and differentiate-able from one another or far enough from one another to truly be independent from one another. The same sign at two different sides of a small park would not be far or unique enough to be considered separate Wayspots.

    In this park below, each red X marks a sign and unique entrance. I'm sure a Wayspot for each would show up on the duplicates, but I would consider the signage at each entrance acceptable.

    I used to collect responses, too. As you note it's a fool's errand (cheers from a fellow fool). You'll probably recall it wasn't uncommon for them to reverse statements or contradict previous clarification comments and even published guidelines at times. I take them much less seriously, now, and it's also been made more clear since 3.1 that the intent is to be more tolerant of additional Wayspots.

    Per published guides:

    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.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4

    The above Niantic comment essentially says: "If it's not a duplicate, then where the pin is placed in relation to other existing Waypoints is of no concern to the reviewer - we at Niantic handle all the distance from another stop stuff. Just review the stop". Good, fine, no problem with this - we can review a park sign no matter how close it is to another.

    However, if it is an identical duplicate (note the use of the phrase "exact duplicate" here), then we should also bear these "published guides" in mind when reviewing.

    NianticCasey-ING Posts: 538Niantic › admin March 2020 Accepted Answer

    Hey folks,

    There are a couple of considerations to make here, but in general I stand by my previous guidance: Wayspots should not be "as many locations as possible but rather unique, interesting, artistic or notable local hotspots where people could gather or learn or discover something about their community.

    In order for multiple entrances to the same park to be considered eligible, they would need to be either unique and differentiate-able from one another or far enough from one another to truly be independent from one another. The same sign at two different sides of a small park would not be far or unique enough to be considered separate Wayspots.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gendgi-PGO @sogNinjaman-ING

    Yes, that's true about the park entrance and exit.

    However, this case is basically different.

    Of course, it's also different from the multiple playground equipment and trail markers I mentioned before. These are cases where multiple objects of the same nature are installed.

    First, check out my first post on conceptual diagrams and the subsequent post on examples of specific candidates.

    In this case, the exact same object, mural, or plaque is installed at a certain distance and according to certain rules.

    This kind of thing has been appearing more and more frequently in recent reviews.

    This case can be seen in Japan when the city tried to decorate its streets in urban planning. If it were the only thing, I would approve it.

    But the reality is that most of them use the same thing over and over again based on these certain rules.

    The exact same object, mural, or plaque appears at regular distance intervals.

    Nominators will name these with a self-explanatory title (but usually a name different from the existing wayspot for fear of duplication) and then nominate them.

    I don't remember any clear criteria being given for this kind of case.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The "multiple identical objects" is one of my objections to multiple identical trail markers being nominated every 50m or so along a trail.

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd recall that @HaramDingo-ING might've experienced an actual situation before. You should check the thread below:

    Still, no official clarification from Niantic.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's definitely similar.

    However, the shape of each fish is different, which makes it different from the example I asked about.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭


    It has been two months since I asked you guys how to review and still no answer.

    Is this case so difficult?

  • MariusGabitus-PGOMariusGabitus-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    Vivo cerca de un lugar que se parquizo la vuelta tiene 1200 metros y en los extremos hay carteles similares separados por más de 500 metros. Me parece un lugar muy bueno para poner varias pokeparadas y algún gimnasio también. Para incentivar a jugar a los que viven cerca. Creo que deben considerar pokeparadas diferentes.

  • ElseSense-PGOElseSense-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭


    You may be interested in this comment, there are a few examples about objects that are nearby.

  • Aeryle88-PGOAeryle88-PGO Posts: 425 ✭✭✭

    Trail markers are mass producted, but you (Niantic) had said that we nominate trail, and not the marker. And trail markers are eligible.

    So it's not always as simple as that?

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Expect this quote to be regularly bandied about as "proof" that "xxxx" should be rejected........ 😉

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Okay, it seems to be a more difficult problem than I thought.

    I will ask your question again the next time a specific case comes up.

    Also, you say "we need to judge them on merit", what should we keep in mind here in our review?

    I would appreciate your advice.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It is indeed close, but a little different.

    In my case, it is when there are identical POIs (objects, murals, plaques, etc.) aligned with a certain law on the parapets of streets and bridges in the city.

    I used the Pokemon illustration as a conceptual diagram, but imagine Venus de Milo, Rodin's Thinker, Michelangelo's David, Samothrace's Nike lined up along the city streets in a predetermined order.

    There should be no objection to approving these sculptures when they stand alone.

    However, if there were several present at a certain distance apart, how should we review them? This is what we mean.

    I wanted to post this time because I wanted to provide clear criteria on this point.

    Approve individually, merge leaving one as a duplicate, reject as a mass-produced item.

    I am very much at a loss to decide.

    And in Japan, when roads and bridges are built as part of urban development, these objects, murals, plates, etc. are often built on sidewalks and parapets.

    And many of them are lined up with certain rules.

    If, when you are reviewing, Venus de Milo, Rodin's Thinker, Michelangelo's David, and Samothrace's Nike are built every 50 m along a 1 km road, and every 200 m Of the four Venus de Milo's that exist in total every two years, two are already existing wayspots, so what will you decide the next time a third Venus de Milo comes up for review?

    Even if you have your own criteria, you may have doubts about whether they are correct.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The original post looks like stencils. Common stencil art is not valid. Their images are (or can be) mass produced.

    Yes a tenth of a mile (160 meters) seems really close.

    When reviewing, if the duplicate map shows something exactly like the nomination in question, I believe Niantic says it should be marked as a duplicate. Even if both wayspots are accurate - but the things themselves are duplicates. Like a pair of lion statutes - they're a set.

    The caveat is - on the duplicate map Niantic, shows different distances for different nominations. So, for example, say two identical statues are 160m part. If Niantic shows a 150m diameter on the duplicate map, the reviewer will not see the other statue's waypoint. If Niantic shows a 200m diameter, the second one will show up.

    As Nominator, you don't know what radius will be shown to reviewers. So it's somewhat random.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 734 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 10


    I also thought that the duplication decision was the most appropriate and that integration into the first wayspot that occurred was appropriate, but I could not even get confirmation in my mind, so I asked for clarification.

    Just yesterday, a myfriend tell, "These are the kinds of wayspot you were talking about that you were having trouble reviewing before, right?" 

    (1)プレート:羊の行列 ”English translate Plate: Procession of sheep”,135.430331&z=17&pll=34.502675,135.430331

    (2)プレート:カカシとシカ ”English translate Plate: Scarecrow and Deer",135.434257&z=17&pll=34.499635,135.434257

    (3)プレート:トンボと鹿の群れ ”English translate Plate: Dragonflies and a herd of deer",135.435896&z=17&pll=34.498472,135.435896

    The distance measured between (1) and (2) was about 500 m, and between (2) and (3) about 200 m.

    I haven't looked into it in detail yet, but the example I am talking about is this wayspot.

    Although it is impossible to say with certainty without checking on site, the distance between each plate is about 20 meters, and a total of about 10 patterns of plates may be regularly lined up on the sidewalks of this street.

    I can't say for sure because I have not been there, just looking at Intel Maps and Street View, but there are probably many more plates with the same pattern on this street.

    If only one of this pattern exists on this street, I would approve it.

    And I would nominate it for wayfarer.

    But if there is more than one, I will not upload it if I am the nominator.

    And I think it is appropriate to judge the duplicate in the review.

    I also think it is appropriate to consolidate existing wayspots.

    However, there should be multiple opinions on this as well.

    What would you judge?


    Post edited by tp235-ING on
Sign In or Register to comment.