It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I don't consider that to be "judging things more leniently," I consider that to be "acknowledging that similar items may have more cultural relevance in a less dense area." The standards are still the same, it just happens that a facility in one context may be more likely to meet those standards than a similar facility in another context. At least, that's how I think of it.
so bassically not just am i selling them but i need to be a photographer to have a chance😂
I just voted on your greenhouse. It is located on a a road with no pedestrian access.
yes you are totally right. If you want a wayspot to be accepted, you have to do a little. Everything else is just wasted time.
Dont expect to have perfect contributions in 10 days. I am submitting since many years. It takes a while to find out what works best.
The grass is not lava
2 good nominations here:
35.89996008261567, -83.81913331831866 - The Chatterbox. This looks like a bar and/or restaurant. A great place to be social!
35.89966347240409, -83.81928233926838 - A live music stage at The Chatterbox - A place to gather with friends and see live music! Definitely a great place to be social, and to explore (discover local musicians).
So signs on the side of interstates and such are acceptable? No sidewalk needed? Ok good to know.
If you have clubs/club houses there, you can also nominate them.
Believe it or not, a person could walk all the way from that parking lot, through the grass, to the sign without being run over
Ok you are right I will start accepting things located off the side of the road in a ditch if they are in a grassy area pfff haha.
I mean this is getting ridiculous. The mental gymnastics that people will go through in order to reject a nomination…The sign is not in a ditch. But even if it were, it’s still safe. The only thing Niantic doesn’t want you to accept is areas that will get you killed if you stand there. No one is getting killed standing next to that sign.
you are on here just to argue. Everyone else agrees it is a bad nomination. Go find something else to do. We want to keep out agreement rates above 80%.
No we don't. Speak for yourself
You are getting off subject
Indeed you are @THEROOKlE-PGO
Go and find something else to do if you don't want to help @breandcaleb-PGO @Breaaaad-PGO find potential wayspots
It’s been my experience that lots of people agree with me they’re just too afraid to voice their opinions on here because of the bullies.
lmao you are one of the bullies with your rude and unnecessary comments that make people not want to use this sight and scare them off. Maybe if you wouldn’t use sarcasm more people would post on here.
Hello everyone it’s possible to disagree without things getting personal.
So because I have not posted over 1,000 on a help sight makes me a rookie? I guess my 753 accepted agreements or 68,000 reviews with an agreement rate of 84% means nothing compared to your actual non posting gameplay?
Straight from Niantic “pedestrian access - Use for nominations that do not have a safe, pedestrian pathway leading to the object. Note that it is not sufficient to be able to access the nomination from a nearby sidewalk. There must be a pedestrian walkway or a trail leading all the way to the object.”
the rejection is correct.
Thank you so much I owe you one.
Pretty sure insulting people and calling them names is a no no on here please stop. Some might take it personal or as a threat.
This was asked about on the November 2020 AMA:
What constitutes “safe pedestrian access” to a location?
Safe Pedestrian Access denotes the player is able to access the object in question by walking up to it without putting themselves into potential danger. Objects in pedestrian areas, along sidewalks or paths or in parks/fields are great examples of eligible locations. Ineligible examples include objects on roundabouts or in traffic dividers that do not have a sidewalk/pathway leading to it.
I would argue that so long as the grass is not private residential property (which would result in trespassing), and it is in an area that doesn't have paved sidewalks at all, then it would stand to reason that the grass would indeed be used as a place for pedestrians to walk, and that would therefore constitute safe pedestrian access in this situation.
Whether that is the actual case here, I can't say for certain, as I'm not a local of this area, and I've not really had much of a look on street view. It is something to bear in mind though, as safe pedestrian access isn't necessarily as inflexible as your guideline quote would suggest.
The field is private residence. You would need to park in their driveway to reach it by foot without walking on the road. You can see there is a trampoline next to the mobile home in the 2nd photo. The only way to reach it would be to walk down the road or park in their driveway and walk down their front yard. If it is located up the road why not just nominate the new location.
Instead of trying to identify potential waypoints, try creating (with appropriate authorization/approval from property owner) new waypoints that will definitely get approved near you.
Things like pieces of art/murals/sculptures. One I really like is the Little Free Library. People can literally install a chartered one in their front yard and it'll be approved! Look up https://littlefreelibrary.org/
Note: You get much better probability of it being approved if it can be seen via Google Maps. So I heard you can request Google to do a new scan of your area, I just don't know how often/quickly they'll get to where you're at since it's more rural.
One I really like is the Little Free Library. People can literally install a chartered one in their front yard and it'll be approved!
If it's in someone's front yard, that breaks the private residential property rule.
you “This was asked about on the November 2020 AMA:”
”safe pedestrian access” isn’t the same as pedestrian access. Yes, it was clarified what is considered safe, but not what constitutes pedestrian access, safe or not. That’s clearly defined.
It is a clarification on the pedestrian access criteria. The whole reason the pedestrian access criteria exists is from a safety point of view. Hence "safe pedestrian access". Even the rejection criteria for pedestrian access specifically mentions the word "unsafe".
Based on the contents of this discussion, I'll be closing it for any further engagement.