Wayfarer Criteria Clarification - Discussion

Hello Explorers,

Please use this space to share your thoughts about the Wayfarer Criteria Clarification goal mentioned in the Message from your Wayfarer Ambassadors post.

Feel free to pose questions, share ideas, feedback, etc.

Safe Exploring!



  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 4,845 Ambassador

    Also, as we have this thread, is it worth “pausing” the Criteria Clarification sub-forum and suspending any clarifications there at the moment, given that they may change from this discussion and just got back to what’s on Wayfarer’s pages for a while, rather than having to link to little sections here and there when submitting?

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 4,845 Ambassador

    Thanks. That area feels like a mess at this point so I think it’s better to quash it for now and then incorporate any clarifications that come from this in to the main Wayfarer help pages.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,424 Ambassador

    Oops, I actually meant to post my comment as a reply to your frequency of updates question.

    I think Criteria Clarifications can continue as an active thread. Part of the discussion we want to have is how a nomination or candidate meets the current criteria. I don't think we'll ever have a published NCN guideline, but I do think that we can have earnest conversations about if this NCN marker encourages exploration and exercise. This may be a more difficult conversation to have with these markers than others.

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 4,845 Ambassador

    Ah I see. I made a comment on each thread, so easy to get the wrong one. I think the issue is that Niantic say (either by an approved Appeal or a comment here) that “This marker is okay” and then some members of the community run with that and tell their community “All of these markers are okay” and that muddies the already vague waters.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,424 Ambassador

    I agree so much with this. It's a problem that I hope we can find a pathway to resolving.

  • tp235-INGtp235-ING Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Much of this could be eliminated if the disapproval and removal criteria, which many game players find difficult to understand, were sorted out.

    Currently, the number of non-deleted but clearly ineligible WAYSPOTs is growing rapidly and is degrading the quality of the field.

    To put a finer point on it, the criteria for mass production and uniqueness should be clarified.

    For example, the markers of a few centimeters that continue to proliferate in Australia, that is a completely bad example.

    People have to look closely at the number to understand the difference between it and the marker next to it. And of course, they cannot identify it from 5 meters away, let alone 40 meters away.

    And in Japan, where I live, the number of bulletin boards that exist every 100 meters, like the Australian markers, are proliferating, further degrading the quality of the field.

    Some Japanese players are trying to bring the UK case, which happens to be spoken in this forum, to Japan in an expanded interpretation, trying to get all the boards that exist every 100 meters approved.

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 1,152 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I want eligible/ineligible clarifications for everything, but that is not practical. I think what would help the most is a more thorough understanding of the reasons behind any clarifications given. For example, this one from the November 2020 AMA still gives reviewers fits:

    With the criteria refresh, how has that change affected how reviewers should consider swimming pools? 

    • Similar to before the criteria refresh, swimming pools at private residences or hotels (or other similar residentially-focused locations) are ineligible. Other than that, pools would be a great place to meet and that encourages exercise and should be considered eligible. This includes public pools, pools or training complexes with historical context, reflecting pools, fountains, aquatic centers and cooldown centers, university pools, sport arenas/complexes and more.

    The first problem with this is the phrase "similar residentially-focused" - does that mean similar to private homes and hotels? Or does it mean neighborhood pools, since those are for residents? And where does the line stop between neighborhood and public pools? I understand the private single family home pool not being eligible because of the location, and think restating that here confused the issue. But is it the lack of lifeguard that makes "residentially-focused" pools ineligible? That understanding behind the clarification would be helpful in trying to figure out whether we should reject or accept.

  • WoodWose-PGOWoodWose-PGO Posts: 124 ✭✭✭✭

    I understand that it's difficult to come up with global, all-encompassing criteria, but in situations where communities have a notable ideological divide on certain types of candidates, surely there's some room for Niantic to step in more than they currently do.

    Using Australia's NSW state survey markers as an example - there's a thread about them posted almost every other week on this forum. A lot of reviewers are genuinely confused and the whole topic is causing somewhat of a rift in the local reviewer community, but it's proven almost impossible to get Niantic to weigh in on the topic since the new explore, exercise, socialise criteria rolled out.


    In Korea, apartment information maps, front and rear doors of apartments, apartment nameplates are often approved as wayspots. Since most of the housing types are apartments, I think I'm very generous with nominations related to apartment complexes.

    It seems that a formal description of the criteria is needed.

  • ElwynGreygoose-INGElwynGreygoose-ING Posts: 244 ✭✭✭✭

    At least Niantic's rejection of a named trail marker appeal as 'mass-produced, generic' puts an end to any/all trail marker debates, I guess?

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 4,814 Ambassador

    outcomes of appeals are pretty meaningless at the moment.

    There are numerous conflicting examples. If I get any of my few appeals resolved either in favour or not I won’t extrapolate too far from that.

    There are some subjects that keep appearing here that really don’t need raking up again and again. I think we are getting there with “trail markers” - the phrase means different things in different parts of the world. I happy with the fundamental is it something that encourages exploration and exercise.

    So I don’t actually think hard rules help a global game.

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 4,845 Ambassador

    I’d hope that’s an error. Can you share it here or in Nomination Improvement?

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 3,790 ✭✭✭✭✭

    While there are many thing in my country that need clarifications, I would first ask Niantic to have better—and clearer—communication to the players.

    Especially, remove in-game terms as much as possible during submitting new Wayspots:

    This question is asking "why you believe your PokéStop nomination is important and what Trainers will see there". I don't know if people in my country will understand this part of question but most of the time I found:

    1. Not explain why their nominations is important (meeting acceptance criteria) but only mentioning why the nominations didn't meet any rejection criteria;
    2. Other than "Ne3D m04r 5t0Pz" shenanigans, sometimes their answer will mention Trainers, like "this pokestop is important to Trainers because this is an interesting and unique POI" or alike (again, not mentioning why the nominations meet acceptance criteria).
    3. What's more interesting, only few are aware with three eligibility criteria in Wayfarer 3.0, leaving the question what about other people. Maybe these people don't read the criteria at all, proven by them not knowing that Wayfarer support chat exist.

    These need to be cleared by Niantic.

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 4,845 Ambassador

    That might have been me? I had two trail markers for the same trail. One accepted at Appeal, another one rejected.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As I'm from the UK, I don't see what is wrong with the ncn markers? Even Americans can go onto the ncn website and see it was created to get people exploring and exercising (not to mention, all the complaints that people have against them were brought up in the forum thread BEFORE Giffard made the call, meaning he saw all the reasons against and said they were good)

  • PkmnTrainerJ-INGPkmnTrainerJ-ING Posts: 4,845 Ambassador

    It’s certainly up for debate on it. Some would say they’re mass produced and meet some rejection criteria and thus shouldn’t be accepted.

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    To the mass produced argument, I reply with mugas, at least in Scotland, the mugas are made to almost the exact same specifications, by the same company, even down to having a bench at the side. I even found the website for it. If they aren't rejected for mass production, why should the ncn marker be? At the very least, the ncn markers should be good for rural places, seeing as that's also a topic just now. I've said before, I live next to the canal, in the 5km long stretch from one bridge to the next, there's (including the bridges themselves as they have signposts too, though there's already pois at the sign posts) there are 5 ncn markers, I wouldn't say that's over used along that length, and that's through country side, so it's not like there would be anything else to submit on there

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ove said before, maybe they shouldn't do an all encompassing set of guidelines, or more like, if they have an all encompassing kne, they should also have split off sections for certain regions, for example, Britain has the red telephone boxes, post boxes, ncn etc. That have all had their own specific rules, because of culture, history etc.

    Theres even places I Europe in general where the road is also the safe pedestrian access, in an American I assume that wouldn't come up as much, but in some places, there is no pavement, so it seems daft to reject things as unsafe there when pedestrians would have right of way in those places.

    So any discussion when it comes to criteria I'd going to need to revolve round how the criteria needs thought of, should it just be the criteria that people in an office in the middle of a city in America came up with or shoukd it have input from countries/places that arent an American city lol

  • Gazzas89-PGOGazzas89-PGO Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As a side note, generic/mass produced is way to over used by people. When reading the guidelines on the website, that seems more aimed at stopping bog standard garden ornaments, street signs, single bench, single picnic bench, things like that from getting through

  • HaramDingo-INGHaramDingo-ING Posts: 1,710 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Criteria is fluid, and way too nuanced. So in three main dot-points:

    • Grand-fathered in or clearly ineligible existing wayspots create the impression of nominatability because they're already there.
    • Removal criteria as many have pointed out is starkly different from rejection criteria. You can't remove something that is ineligible unless it is horrendously bad (such as someone's shoes on a dashboard)
    • Reviewing in Wayfarer is going to be a nightmare if it is done simultaneously by a bunch of reviewers in the same room. It's like judging for Eurovision. Some people might find it quirky and give out a perfect score, others think washing your hands and singing about the health system is horrendous. No matter what you say, you're going to be boo'd by someone from the opposing sides of the spectrum.

    Wayfarer is a melting pot of ideas and cultures coming together. It also happens to be on the internet, so you will have arguments and disagreements, with many taking it to extremes. When NianticCasey gave examples of situations where nominations could be eligible, it became gospel; from clarifications about McDonald's playgrounds to the renowned "Starbucks in my hometown" example. Further clarifications such as the November 2020 AMA made residentially-focused pools ineligible all of a sudden. Criteria is malleable and is moulded the more you ask for clarifications. The advent of Wayfarer 3.1 and the New Criteria all of a sudden saw restaurants and cafes added to the mix of "great places to socialise", with limited degrees of success of course.

    If you ask for way too much clarification, the criteria will become something that you used to know. God forbid a Wayfinder to travel to a whole different country or even interstate only to become flustered and refuse to play because the wayspots they're spinning/capturing do not correspond with their expectations of a perfect wayspot.

    Just my two cents. Then again, appeals are now underway and we're seeing... very interesting results coming from that. Appeal outcomes are quickly becoming the next holy grail of gospel.

  • Duiomar-PGODuiomar-PGO Posts: 458 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's pretty clear that in both the Australian case and the UK trail marker case, there's a faction that is just going to try to relitigate it until the end of time in the hopes of getting a vague niantic comment that could be used to justify their positions if you squint at it in the right light. Niantic finally giving an absolute ruling would help bring the subforum back to actual criteria clarifications and not just endless complaining about criteria people don't like.

Sign In or Register to comment.