It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
For people on both sides of the argument, the problem is that Niantic refuse to give definitive "Yes" or "No" answers for specific things such as the UK "Public Footpath" yellow arrow disc, or the Australian "State Survey Discs". Personally, I would really like to see Niantic being a bit more definite about things like this. Settle the argument one way or the other, then everything is sorted and everybody has some definite criteria to follow with no argument.
Despite the best efforts of the Wayfarer team to keep their voluntary reviewers (ie you and me) happy, we all know know that the Wayfarer team staff are really on a losing streak as far as influencing company policy with regards to anything like this. We have been told by them they have to go to the various game Dev teams to ask for certain features or get problems solved, they are not seen as an intral part of the game team environments. They also have to contend with the requirement from Niantic to continue to expand (thanks to our efforts) the Lightship database that Niantic are looking to monetise big time to other AR game developers. The fact that I have never yet met any player of PoGo or HPWU playing outside in AR mode is of no matter, "AR Mode" is a USP for selling Lightship. Ingress has had Portal submissions for years before PoGO came along, so really, most of the "good stuff" is already a Waypoint. We now have the constant stream of comparatively low quality, repetitive nominations arriving every day as people try to fill up the game board with average undistinguished nominations, partly because they can't be othered to walk a few 100m to their nearest stop. When did you last see a nomination that really made you say "Wow, that really should be a Waypoint" that you gave 5* to for all categories?
So, until Niantic can sort out their own inhouse dichotomy over "We want high quality Waypoints / NeEd MoAr LiGhTsHiP StopZ" then we are going to be stuck with this problem of whether some particular nomnations should be voted in or out. Until then, I'm going to follow Niantics own advice for things like this and stick with my current voting patterns. If Niantic won't give a direct answer to a simple question, then shouting for "troll reviewers to be punished" has no merit either.
"Reviewing Wayspot nominations involves your good judgement. There is no single set of rules or person who can tell a community in black and white what places are important where others are not. That's why there will always be some 'grey area' in our collective goal to map the most interesting local places. What really influences reviews is how content is presented to convince reviewers that a nomination supports Niantic's mission and follows the rules around abuse, accuracy, and intent."
Realistically there's no correct or incorrect which only leaves us with one option.
Submit and see what reviewers think. If they don't like it then start a looooong thread complaining about it and get Niantic to send the 67 reviewers who disagree with you an email.
[Deleted because I decided it was going a bit off topic.]
They have given a definitive "Yes" on "Public Footpath" signs in open green spaces.
There is no such thing as a high quality wayspot or a low quality wayspot. There is only wayspots that you like more and wayspots that you like less. People have different preferences, and what you class as a low quality wayspot, might be someone else's top quality wayspot. Half the wayspots I get to review are generic, mass produced trail markers, and those are my favorite wayspots. I immidiately hit 5 stars when I see them. And I wouldn't mind if Niantic on day decided that trail markers are the only valid wayspots, and everything else is removed from the games.
Be open minded. Keep your personal preferences out of your reviewing choices, and think about what other people might find interesting (within the 3 eligibility criteria). A local knitting club, not interesting for me. Probably not for you too. But some people might find it an interesting place to meet with others. So why wouldn't it be a good candidate? It's not about what you like. It's not about what I like. It's about what might meet criteria to some people of the local (not Niantic related) community.
Niantic recently confirmed a trail does not need to be a named trail. They also said a simple arrow is enough on a public footpath disc, as long as it's pointing to somewhere you can explore.
Those who like to reject everything they can are ignoring this and people in certain wayfarer groups have said they will continue to reject.. which means others in their group will to keep their agreements up.
So we are still getting them badly rejected due to bad Wayfarers who know better
Finally stumbling into one of these clarifications on Trail Markers.
This bit below is what Niantic said:
a) A marker with the trail name on the trail <- Excellent (Correct)
b) A marker with the trail name on a street <- Good (Correct)
c) A marker with no trail name on the trail <- Good (Correct)
d) A marker with no trail name on an open green space area <- Good enough (Correct)
e) A marker with no trail name on the street <- Not Good (Correct)
Do I take this to mean e) is a 1* , I should use my judgement for d), c) & d) generally getting a pass and a) being 5* ?
I'm happy to do this, and apologise to recent "generic" arrows I've 1*ed.
Does this apply to circular council "public footpath" arrows as well as 'flag' shaped post-mounted directional signs?
Or must it be named trail rather than just a public right of way through a rural setting, regardless of the kind of marker?
(thanks I tried to post this with some images but it doesn't seem to want to take)
edit: i've tried it with links to images instead.
It's up to you to decide whether the submitter has made an adequate case, with credible evidence, that the POI candidate meets one of the criteria. The problem we have is that someone sees something in the game as a POI and then thinks they can nominate each and every other instance of such an object. That's not how it works. Every nomination must be considered on its merits. Would the title, photo and description make you jump up out of your seat and go exploring?
The post where that clarification was also includes an image of a simple arrow saying they are ok as submission
Near the bottom of the page you can that post
Hi, I know this is an old post but it seems relevant. I go running on a public footpath that goes from the village across two farms and ends on a public Quay on the Helford river. Boats traverse the river freely and land on the Quay which is open to the public and has informationsign and bench. Its a popular destination with I would estimate around 100 walkers daily. Everything I submit (signs, stile/gate, art/sculpture l, memorial Bench x 2, Quay, pond, etc) is rejected as private land/farm. Is this normal? Its sort of true, but ignores that it's a public footpath. I'm specifically trying not to take pictures of generic public footpath signs here and add destination and way points on the various runs I exercise on. Is this normal, or niantic policy, or a local Reviewer being pedantic?
Hello and welcome @goongillings-PGO
Can you provide both the main and supplementary photos for a few of the rejected -use the paperclip to avoid delays due to the post being moderated.
Can you also please, cut and paste the title, description and supplementary text so that It is easy for any one who needs it to translate.
If you are happy to do so the exact location - co ordinates or full address
Finally can you provide the reasons it was rejected.
To add to above two rejections specifically because of "low quality photo". The low quality is only the auto-generated thumbnail- when the photo is clicked it's obviously high quality! For some reason can't find original images on phone, so have downloaded from the example submission. Here title & description is "pond bench", reasons for rejection "Low Quality Photo, Orientation", supplemental info is "Memorial Bench by the pond, along footbath leading from woods. You can clearly see the pond on the Google maps view. The island shown is just out of view on the right of the picture.". I can get map ref when I next go for run, but screenshot of location shown. We are a rural location so street view difficult. I think (apart from the quality/thumbnail issue) the default rejection of farm seems to override the fact that public footpaths are public! I'll use next post for next example (there are lots - in fact every submission so far).
"The river gate", rejection reason "low quality photograph, natural feature", supplementaldetail "just off the footpath, a well known gate that leads directly onto the Helford river."
I get that this was rejected because the gate is boring, if unusual to have a gate on a public footpath to a (public) river. However rejecting for low quality photograph???? Default thumbnail is blurred as is the previous example.
Another (not) blurry photograph. Here it's a sign to a farm, that marks the entrance of the "public footpath" to Constantine village. Title "Polwartha Farm Footpath", Description "Entrance to Polwartha Farm and footpath.", supplemental "Entrance to farm from main road, also marks the footpath that leads to Constantine village.", Rejection reason "Private Residence or Farm, Low Quality Photo". Yes it's just a sign for a farm, but it's a "public footpath" leading to the village which is mentioned and verifiable on Google maps. Again here the poor photo, but the sign is centrefold and high quality. A bit of shade? Yes the auto-generated thumbnail is blurry. Real argument is farm/vs footpath? Or just boring (seeing some of the verified signs on wayfinder I'd say I am not the only source of boring signs ;-)
More contentious example here - again a sign/sculpture (?) - because its viewable from the "public footpath", but on/in a shed on a farm.
"Gather Sign", "Gather Sign, originally made by artists for the gather festival which was held on the farm. Now permanently installed in the hangar shed. This shed is situated about half way along the public footpath leading from Constantine village to Scotts Quay"
Rejection reason: "Private Residence or farm".
Perhaps I should have added that the shed is permanently open. You can see from the supplemental image a dog on the "public footpath", and its specifically mentioned as being public. I'm sure I've bored any readers enough for now. Would be great if niantic could make clear the private farm vs public footpath thing, as the whole of Cornwall is made up of footpaths on private farm areas. Technically the entire Helford river is privately owned by the Royal Family (legally and in practice - they charge rent for mooring boats), and in theory private, but literally hundreds of thousands of boating visitors every year!
The Helford River is a lovely part of Cornwall.
Having looked at these there are issues, and some misunderstandings.
First silly though it sounds don’t always take the reasons something is rejected literally, some people misclick, and others have slightly skewed understanding of the phrase used. You don’t mention if there was a line that said “other rejection criteria”. This is often misread as a heading for what follows. What it actually means is a key rejection reason is that the nomination doesn’t meet the criteria. And I suspect that was the **** dame tale reason for these.
Benches. These can sometimes be suitable IF they are artistic (eg carved) or commemorate a prominent person or they act as an “anchor” / place marker for a view. It’s not an exhaustive list but it needs to have something very special about it. So the bench you have doesn’t tick those boxes. You might actually do better with the wooden platform built out into the pond, presumably for pond dipping activity. It won’t be an easy sell but it probably stands a better chance.
The gate as you say is not special. Ignore the rejection reasons, it just doesn’t meet criteria.
Polwartha Farm As this is about the farm it is correctly rejected. The footpath has potential and should be the focus. Is there a public footpath sign? It is probably a very simple one but as it is rural you might with a very good description etc get it accepted.
Gather Sign. This looks interesting and I like the backstory…..but frustrating though it is, because it is the barn it is correctly rejected as Farm/PRP. It doesn’t matter that it can be seen from the footpath and that the current owner leaves it open and no doubt from time to time walkers shelter there from the weather and nobody thinks anything about it, it is private property.
The right of way that the public footpath grants is just that the right walk over that route. Your best bets are the footpath signs. If you can provide a link to a website showing the routes it will help. Often these are on council databases and are assigned a reference number. You could try approaching the local parish council, council or ramblers group to see they could get a project to provide a trail using the footpaths to promote exercise and exploration of the area both for locals and visitors.
More than happy to try and help with how to present the nominations.
There is a footpath nearby
And you can see the path on satellite view
A new point here should turn the Trengilly Inn into a gym.
It would take a bit of work and persistence but it’s a better choice.
There are also small groups of holiday cottages. Do any have a small play area as that would be acceptable.
Elijustrying - Please stop encouraging and enabling coal submissions due to the sheer quantity and insignificance of them.
With that said goongillings - Consider the 2 fingerposts near there, see attachment - ID CW_SW7227 and CW_SW7228
Some history of them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerpost#United_Kingdom - a lot of the original original fingerposts were removed during WWI and WWII to confuse the German paratroop invaders, and they were either lost (no one remembers where they went when they removed the original fingerposts, or they were just never put back/replaced post-WWII), the surviving fingerposts are either the lucky few who were forgotten about and were never removed during the wars, or modern replica replacements (for historical purposes), some now Grade II Listed, there's an entire list of them documented here https://www.msocrepository.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MSS_Summary_Sheet_Fingerposts.xls if you look for Constantine in the list.
There's more cool stuff if you know what to look for and where to look for it.
Another rejection, and this one is a doozy.
Absolutely seething about the one. Rejected because its a natural feature! Literally didn't read any of description, the supplemental or even know that a Quay is by definition "man made".
a stone or metal platform lying alongside or projecting into water for loading and unloading ships."
Made of blocks of solid granite in the form of a wall. Here is a picture at low tide. It's even marked on the map as "Scott's quay". Google it and many articles e.g. https://cornishbirdblog.com/scotts-quay-constantine-a-hidden-history/
Rejection reason "Natural feature"
Description "Scott's Quay. Built in the early 1800s by Charles Scott."
Supplement "Marks the end of the public footpath. very popular as can be seen from google search. Historical landmark as was built in the early 1800s by Charles Scott."
No option to appeal - this is like a joke at this point!
Picture of the "
I’m glad you found those other markers. It’s always good to give ideas, which is what I have done.
Obviously I disagree with your interpretation, and people can differ and there few clear cut rules.
As I said none of these are at all easy to be accepted. However they are not impossible. Personally I love finding footpaths to enable me to walk and explore away from narrow Cornish roads. Exercising and exploring are key criteria so are eligible for consideration. It is then up to the submitter to convince reviewers that they are acceptable. I don’t think every public footpath marker warrants acceptance but neither do I think they instantly warrant rejection. I have seen strong arguments that finger post signs should just be considered as traffic signs.
I also think that working with your community is a great idea. Everyone benefits.
from the information presented to the reviewers, natural feature was a good choice for rejection.
The picture just appears to be a section of flat grass. There is very little in the description/ supplementary other than stating it’s a quay. And your photos don’t look like a quay..
You can appeal - you get one every month.
But I would try improving it first- I like Industrial archaeology.
The webpage you linked to said there is an information board. Is it still there and in a reasonable state? If it’s is that is what you want to submit. And that page also had loads of info to inform a good description.
The Information board is degraded. The farmer makes them himself.
I get what you are saying re. "Quay", but it's in the title, the description, the supplemental detail, and prominently displayed as a location on the Google map! At the time I couldn't picture the granite blocks because of the tide (I'd have been underwater). I'll go back on a run in a couple of days but not holding my breath because...
Overnight another submission rejected because of "orientation" and "other rejection criteria" but no notes/detail. Honestly if my photos are bad then you should see the competition that has been accepted.
Thank you for feedback, but when I've resubmitted the Quay I think that's it for me as I clearly don't have what it takes (graffiti and unusual waste bins not knocking decent graffiti here!). Seems a shame that locations that are at the end of walks in the countryside should be promoted rather than rejected, but it seems the whoever is reviewing my submissions disagrees.
Bench inscribed "2018", "CB", and "JL" in memorial. Marked by a Cornish flag, and being the site of a settlement dating back to Roman times.
Memorial Bench on footpath. Marks a scenic viewpoint, flagpole and historic settlement that dates back to roman times (as marked on ordinance survey maps).Easiest verification is to use satellite View on the map. You can see the round outline of the settlement in the hedge lines of the field. The bench is to the right of the entrance when looking at in this way.
“Overnight another submission rejected because of "orientation" and "other rejection criteria" but no notes/detail. Honestly if my photos are bad then you should see the competition that has been accepted.”
Honestly, the pics of the bench are from too far away and there is no evidence of an established trail/path nearby. We don’t have access to Google maps, but the screenshot of the map that you included doesn’t show anything that you mention (viewpoint, settlement) and the bench alone would not be eligible.
Yes, the primary photo for the bench is from way too far away. While "Orientation" is not the correct rejection reason for this, the person who chose that rejection reason was likely trying to communicate "there's something wrong with the way they chose to take the photo."
As for "Other rejection criteria," that seems correct to me. Your nomination talks a lot about an ancient settlement, but your nomination is for the bench, and you haven't explained the significance of the bench. Just happening to be located at a historic site does not mean an object meets the criteria. You mention that the bench has certain letters and numbers, but you don't explain what they mean. Are they connected to the ancient site? If so, how (and can you prove it)? These are the kinds of things I'd want answers to if I were reviewing this nomination.
The problem is - do I photograph the Bench on the ancient site or the ancient site with the Bench on it (??). Mentioned in the supplemental that the ancient site is marked on the ordinance survey maps (not sure how I would prove this), mentioned how you can verify by looking at satellite view. Tried to show the worn path in the supplemental photo, can't show the scenic view as well as the ancient site and the Bench. No idea how that would work.
Just got another rejection - tennis courts z now ilk admit was unsure if I'd get this through as they are for residents of the holiday cottages. Mentioned this, and clearly visible on Google maps that holiday cottages. Rejected as private residence. So what is the difference between leisure/exercise play areas/courts at e.g. campsites (many of which I have seen approved), and the same in holiday chalets????
If you're nominating the bench, photograph the bench. But that also means the bench itself has to meet the acceptance criteria. As I mentioned, merely being located on a historic site does not mean the bench itself meets the criteria.
If you're nominating the area, then you will need to find something tangible that represents the area like a sign, as there don't seem to be any remaining structures on the site. Otherwise, you will just have a photo of landscape (and a bench with no apparent relation to the historical site).
Thanks - do you know the recommendations re. Facilities for chalets/holiday cottages like tennis courts? For the one that got rejected today there are no private residences, only the holiday cottages the farmer doesn't even live on the farm (and doesn't play tennis he's 70+).. or is it just likely a dead end?
They should be fine, I've had a tennis court accepted at holiday cottages.
You just have to make sure you don't inadvertently make it look like it's private property.
i did see the tennis court as I looked around and wondered about it.
If it’s available as a facility for the holiday cottages it should be fine - just like when I asked if there was a play area.
Can you provide the photos and text so that we can advise on presentation of the nomination. For example is there a sign or webpage that references the court?
Please hang on in there. You have potential to bring this rural area into Lightship and therefore games but you need help with what will work best and how to present things well. And there are people here willing to help….although some will be more relevant in nomination improvement area.
Are there any local history groups?
This is great news! The tennis court mentioned on the site (link below) - ironically nearly everything that got rejected is on the page - Scotts Quay, court and pond (described as lake, but I think that's a bit of am exaggeration as well). No wind today - as can't get out on the water so I'll be on a run and can take some pictures. I was due an upgrade, but the system randomly applied it to another submission, but if there is thr potential to get something accepted I'll up the pace on the reviewing grind again..