Memorial Benches and markers
I’m starting a separate thread about the issues raised by this thread
I’m concerned that quite a few memorial plaques for benches, stumps in the ground and the golf tee have been considered acceptable by I think Niantic review although some may be by reviewers.
When presented as a whole it is clear this golf course will add a memorial point if you pay.
I tried to search for some of these people and nothing major showed up.
These appear to not follow clear guidelines as it is the direct equivalent of these in a park.
@NianticGiffard can you please look at this.
Have ordinary memorial benches suddenly become acceptable or as I strongly suspect have mistakes been made here - we are all human so it can happen.
I for one would like the situation clarified.
@NianticGiffard following your comment in the parent thread I am now totally confused as to what the situation is. please clarify as a matter of urgency.
Apparently Niantic's decision was that you should vote for them or face punishment.
Which is ridiculous given guidelines - I would be hoping mad if I got an email which probably doesn’t specify what it was for.
The longer this sits without clarification the more simple benches/plaques will come into the system.
Not going to review anything remotely like this.
Bumping this up.
@NianticGiffard following on from what you have said could you confirm the status of simple memorials of non famous people.
@Elijustrying-ING Do you have any tips on how to make a good appeal for a memorial bench? What type of information on said person should be mentioned?
I have had one dedicated bench submitted and accepted.
it was part a new development, where they were trying to showcase local famous women from late 1700s to beginning of 1900s
For this I provided in the description why this person was very notable and the context of the bench.
in supplementary info links to pages that showed the development and its ethos and pages specifically about this person. There may also been webpages fro newspaper articles about the person or bench.
So if you were to appeal that is the sort of evidence I would Include. So it needs to be someone recognised by whole community.
Personally, I'd love to see the Benches/Plaque rule modified.
1) If a bench / plaque could serve as an anchor for a "Explore" worthy view. It should be acceptible. Not because it's inherently eligible but it serves as a anchor for people to go see something worth exploring too.
2) If bench / plaque is part of a trail. It should serve to encourage further travel down the trail same as a trail marker does. I'd accept it as explore/exercise in the same manner a trail marker is. ((Side note: Its definitely not more generic than acceptible markers on trails))
3) If bench / plaque is part of a park. All parks should be extremely accepting of wayspots because the more you get people out in the park the more exercising you are getting.
However if you modify that rule to make those acceptable your making all things that are generic viable candidtes, which makes a mockery of the I in POI.
Also should the rule be amended to accept generic mundande items where do you draw the line on things being accepted.
Remember the whole dog waste bin in a park debacle ?
In your post just replace bench / plaque with dog waste bin, and you get the jist of what im on about.
A bench on a trail has 100% more “I” than 99% of the trail markers I see (or that get posted in here, often accompanied by a text similar to ‘tHeY rEjEcTeD mY tRaiL mArKeRRrrrrrrrargh’).
I get that benches are marginally engaging in the best of cases, but if we’re already supposed to approve one low-quality submission every 20 meters because it’s a “green space,” why not make it a place specifically made for a person to actually go instead of a stick in the ground or a disk on a tree?
I draw the line expressly where I said it. On a trail or park benches/plaques would be acceptible. Outside say a police station, city hall, random business they wouldnt be.
Lots of things are judgement calls with lines. Restaurants are perfect example. They are subjective on whether they meet the Gather/Explore categories. I am suggesting that same subjectivity is location dependent
So would you be perfectly happy to accept a dog waste bin for each of the inital scenarios that you wrote out ?
"Why not make it a place specifically made for a person to go instead of a stick in the ground or a disk on a tree".
I feel like I'm misunderstanding this quote. Aren't places where trail markers place often... Places in of themselves where people specifically want to go because these areas tend to be mostly untouched, undeveloped and left to nature which is what actually makes them fun to explore?
Maybe it'd be better if we could nominate the things that actually make nature trails interesting, such as ponds and lakes, but they would all get rejected as "natural features" so... But that's a whole other debate.
The people who make and manage walking trails won't have the same criteria for what they think what makes an area valuable/fun to explore as we do here on wayfarer - i.e. a bias towards manmade objects. The nature itself is the reason to visit.
Also, where are these walking trails everyone is talking about there there is a disk every 20m lol?
Back on-topic but does anyone else find it... I can't really find the word but unsettling when you receive a memorial bench nomination?
I can't help but feel like it's exploiting the **** and suffering of others just to get more funny little items in a video game :/
I can't help but wonder if the family of the person who died would be happy with it.
Edit: **** is censored but not died lol..?
Just curious; how do you feel about footbridges being eligible?
In what context ?
"Also should the rule be amended to accept generic mundane items where do you draw the line on things being accepted."
Within that context, I was wondering how you feel about footbridges being acceptable waypoints? Some of them can be mundane.
Niantic said in a previous thread that generic footbridges should not be approved.
Well obviously they shouldn't since they don't meet any of the criteria.
Unless it's on a trail ;) lol
@NianticGiffard made no distinctions about footbridges on trails, so I would say the post regarding genetic footbridges is universal.
Yes Niantic did. I can't remember exactly where I read it, either an AMA or Niantic post, but they stated that bridges along trails are elegible.
The "criteria clarification" in question was pre-3.1 criteria update and has been overridden. Giffard's post that ordinary footbridges should not be accepted came after the 3.1 criteria update. But you are still free to disagree with Niantic's reasoning so long as you don't insist that others must follow it on other matters (ie. the atrocious circular reasoning Niantic uses for trail markers).
I believe it was much more recent than that. I'll have a search when in more awake.
I know I don't have to disagree with their reasoning on this because I was happy to read them say they are elegible. Just after this I submitted some and they went through so some reviewers took it on board at least
Just because I know you read this comment in another thread recently:
AMA, October 2019:
Q43: There was a recent debate on reddit about “Bridges” being portal candidates. Regular car bridges clearly should not be portals, however what about wooden walking trail bridges throughout a park or nature preserve on the trail/path?
A43: The answer from NIA OPS is, “If they are accessible by foot and expected to be used as part of the trail, they would meet criteria.”
There that is in black and whites it was confirmed again somewhere else recently.
Funny how in that same thread you admitted you would ignore that kind of guidance from Niantic if it didn't fit in with your view on it...
" I don't take forum posts from Niantic as. If I agree with their reasoning, then I will follow it. If I disagree or think their reasoning is absurd, then I don't"
People who don't follow Niantics guidance is part of the reason we are having too use so many appeals on bad rejections...
The AMA question you referenced was a full year before the 3.1 criteria overhaul, which nullified all previous criteria clarifications. So if you are approving generic footbridges after Niantic plainly stated that they should be rejected, then you are "not following Naitnic's guidelines." But since you feel that you are free to ignore Niantic guidelines on this, then you shouldn't be complaining that other reviewers ignore Niantic on other matters, especially when Niantic uses circular reasoning.
How can you cite Niantic and chide someone for not taking them seriously and then later in the same post be annoyed that someone else has called you out for the same thing?
Honestly I think we'd be better off if we admitted that we all selectively ignore some Niantic rulings because they're inconsistent. It would save everyone a lot of trouble in trying to trip others up while acting like we've never rolled our eyes at a Niantic post.
From the November 2020 AMA, the first after the 3.1 update:
The new criteria lists hiking trails and biking trails as eligible examples under a great place for exercise. Are there any additional requirements for these locations to be eligible (e.g. survey markers, trail signs or other man-made objects)? Do they need to be named trails or paths?
I would argue that a trail bridge is as much a visual indicator as a trail marker, survey marker or trail sign. And since it is then seen as a part of a trail, "generic bridge" no longer applies, since you are not reviewing the bridge on it's own merit.
I already debunked your "Circular reasoning" argument back in April. It's a straw man argument.
Not really, but it depends on the context.
Most memorial benches I see are in public parks or walking trails where people are already encouraged to congregate.
"Memorial bench" is also a bit of a misnomer. They aren't really memorials where mourning family & friends would visit. They're usually "sponsorship plaques" that prove somebody helped pay for the bench, lamppost, or other infrastructure. That's partly why many should be ineligible. They're simply for "My loving parents" or "My dear Suzie who loved biking here." Obviously that isn't all benches, but just something to consider if you're worried about the sensitivity. I have dozens of these in my local parks and I've never seen a wreath or flowers or somebody grieving.
We had a bench for mum and dad at a favourite spot.
We were very unhappy several years later when we told it was to be removed because some people don’t like seeing things like this and found them disturbing.We always liked the thought that people would rest and take in the view, have a laugh and yes no issue with them playing any kind of game.
I think the Forestry Commission couldn’t be bothered looking after them.