There needs to be a double standard - and that's okay.

Rural roads, and you.


If Niantic would like it's world populated with more items which are separated by less than 10 miles in the rural counties of America then Niantic needs to understand, and Niantic needs to make sure the community understands that sidewalks, curbs, and other "safe access" standards simply do not exist in the lesser-populated parts of America.


Anyone who's driven through the flat farms of the Midwest, or the mountains in the northeast understands that often times a dirt road is all the cars, pedestrians have to share. And everyone does just fine. Walkers, joggers know to move against traffic, and drivers leave plenty of space. There are countless sculptures, murals, displays, plaques, covered bridges, libraries, and markers that could be part of Niantic's world but aren't because the letter of the law was written years ago with only urban and suburban areas in mind. Additionally, most of these things are well off the road anyway. Most POIs in urban areas are closer to the road than the potential & rejected POIs in rural areas. So if a pedestrian is 15' or more off the road then what different does it make if what they're standing on is grass on a mountain road, versus concrete in a city?


If Niantic is merely giving lip service to rural residents and doesn't actually want to populate rural areas with more POI's then this post is moot and you can ignore what I'm getting at here. But if they are serious, then the criteria should be updated.

Comments

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The criteria already cover this. They only speak of safe pedestrian access, not of sidewalks.

    The problem is in the (education and understanding of) reviewers.

  • Gillmaz-PGOGillmaz-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    To the lay-person, or the person who once in a blue moon will submit something "safe pedestrian access" is a synonym for sidewalks. There's no other way for someone, especially someone who lives in a city or suburb to interpret it. You may see things differently because you're well versed, most aren't.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 792 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,534 Ambassador

    I can't speak for any rejected nominations you may be speaking about. I assume you have made strong attempts at proving pedestrian access in your nominations, and yes bad faith reviewing happens.


    But there are some simple steps submitters can take to help prove access, as well. I've had to make judgment calls on roadside signs or sculptures where the photos were clearly taken from the car (not egregious photos worth rejecting, but you could tell by the angles). If the submitter had stepped from the vehicle to obtain a wider picture or show a beaten dirt path, they could have improved chances at acceptance.


    I've had personal nominations I was worried would fail because they were alongside of a road, but my supporting photo clearly showed the field that the sign was accessible from. I wonder if simply reminding reviewers that just because it is car accessible doesn't mean it isn't pedestrian accessible from a different direction. I also made it obvious (without being patronizing) that I had accessed it on foot.

  • Snommelp-PGOSnommelp-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Full disclosure, I've skipped nominations if I didn't feel qualified to judge pedestrian access, but it seems like there's a limit to the number of skips you're allowed.

    As someone who used to live in a town where the only traffic signal was a flashing yellow light, where the daily rush hour was caused by tractors and/or stubborn deer, I feel your pain. And I agree with you, reviewers need to be mindful of the context. A nomination on a dirt road is very different from a nomination on an interstate highway. But unless/until Niantic figures out a better way to train reviewers, all I can think is what Gendgi suggested: that you clarify in the supporting information that this is, in fact, accessible to pedestrians.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’m in favor of developing a looser set of criteria for rural, or at least low-density POI, areas. It’d be nice if Niantic could state during review “This is an underserved area” where there are fewer than X number of waypoints within Y distance (or neighboring cells of a certain size), which would cue criteria that are less strict on matters such as farm property, pedestrian access, and memorial objects.

  • Gendgi-PGOGendgi-PGO Posts: 3,534 Ambassador

    For what it's worth, considering their current methodology for defining regions with respect to Wayfarer, this would likely end up having a lot of instances where, say, a small corner of a major metropolis gets classified as "underserved" or an area generally considered rural gets grouped in with the metro.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,846 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is a global problem, and a global community. I find it strange, how America-centered the first post is.

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Probably because OP is speaking from their personal knowledge and doesn't want to make assumptions about areas they haven't been to?

  • GavinWilson-PGOGavinWilson-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    It's not a double standard, its people who are self entitled and believe they know better than the existing criteria.


    I have 99% of my nominations denied for "Other Rejection Criteria" all the time, even if my nominiation has the tags already in pokemon go, has a clear photo, is visible from the road, has other poke stops of the exact same type just down the way.

    The problem you are having isn't the need for a double standard, its the need to kull off the toxic element in here who think they know better than the criteria.

    The nominarions shoud be delt with "Reasons to Accept" however all nominations are delt with by "can i find any slight reason to deny"

    This is why this system is a massive failure.

    This will never work until people are vetted and selected based on IQ and EQ not Ego.

  • Melurra-PGOMelurra-PGO Posts: 421 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The "sidewalks must be present" mindset is just a huge assumption and over-application of the criterion. I don't think it necessarily needs clarification, as it's not inherently unclear, but such a culture has developed around it that course correction could be useful.

    If we look at the two examples from Niantic, the plaque in the median and the statue in the roundabout center, both have one very important thing in common: they are completely enclosed by lanes of motor vehicle traffic. These are the kinds of locations that Niantic is trying to avoid with that criterion. Secondarily, if the example locations had a pedestrian path (ie, sidewalk), they would be eligible. But something off the side of the road, and therefore not enclosed in traffic, would not need a paved path...

    I also frequently see a weird fixation on pedestrian access as THE bar to pass for eligibility. Many, many nominations with supporting criteria saying that the location has safe pedestrian access, even when it is well within a park or has sidewalks in the photo, like at a shopping plaza.

    I think this may be related to the large swath of submitters who think that anything that isn't on private property and that has safe pedestrian access is eligible.

  • Elijustrying-INGElijustrying-ING Posts: 5,482 Ambassador

    @GavinWilson-PGO I agree there can be a strong element of selecting to fail rather than rewarding the elements that are good.

    Part of the issue is the way the review process is laid out which doesn’t have a focus on selecting good points.

    Active reviewers are doing a lot of work for no major reward. As I submit, I see it as important that I also review, but I also need to review for the one perk which is an upgrade - essential to me as otherwise it takes a long time to resolve in excess of 2 years who knows when they will resolve naturally. So some will naturally want to do the review quickly and simply reject at the first question. Not saying that is right, but just that the submitter needs to do their bit in getting the reviewer engaged. For example a description that simply says local cafe, is not telling the reviewer enough. I often go searching and find out a lot of info that actually push something into a submission being acceptable, but the submitter needs to present a better case.

    Sometimes the acceptance criteria changes.

    You mention in another thread that you submit benches. These really need to have something special in order to accept, what you are seeing in other stops are ones accepted when things were different. Those changes can be Infuriating, but sometimes some of the criteria do loosen up. There are regular discussions in here where people put different points of view.

    You can now appeal a rejection so if you have a submission that has been wrongly rejected you can now get Niantic to review that.

Sign In or Register to comment.