Ancient Stone Age monuments
YouLostAStar-ING
Posts: 280 ✭✭✭✭✭
I would regard ancient Stone Age (or earlier) monuments as interesting historical locations, many of them have lots of information to back up the history online but sometimes lack any signage to submit.
the biggest issue is since they are so old they tend to look like small hills (Barrow Mounds and Hill forts particularly) and some Neolithic Stones all get marked down as “natural feature”
while I appreciate the initial pictures of some of these may not help but for me they are culturally and historically very important to our ancient history and probably some of best examples of historical wayspot submissions but they almost impossible to get through Wayfarer if there is no sign despite giving the reviewer loads of evidence in the supporting statement.
can we get an official answer that ancient monuments are good submissions even if there isn’t a sign as long as there is good evidence online that it is indeed what it’s claimed to be
Answers
I would say there doesnt need to be official backing, as you say, they look natural at this stage, so the issue you will be getting is that reviewrs will only look at the picture, 1 star it as natural then move in
That’s exactly why it needs an official comment on it
I believe too many people have the mentality of: no sign, no Wayspot! I once submitted a BMX track which had the sign destroyed. In addition to me providing a link to the park website proving there is a BMX track in said park, one could clearly tell it was a BMX track, not just from my photographs but from the satellite view too, as it is rather a substantial track.
It got rejected and the feedback I got from the Reddit Wayfarer community (before this forum existed) was: 'if the shoe was on the other foot would you accept this?' My thoughts on a BMX track with no sign are: dirt is not arranged in such a fashion by chance: this structure has to be man-made. One can clearly see the track from the peaks and dips and the soil erosion.
Why do you think that an "official comment" would change anything?
We have seen so many times that people request for "official clarification" searching for a comment that matches their point of view, presenting a perfect example of something valid (or that should be rejected) and then they or other people try to use that comment with anything remotely similar.
And then they post again "because people don't follow the rules", the only truth is that most of the people don't know nor care about what happens in this little forum, they have already established their own criteria about what's valid and what not, and they are not gonna be trying to read this forum to change their point of view.
If someone marks a neolithic stone as natural feature, then pointing them to read a thread in this forum won't change their mind. They don't believe that the nomination is a man-made feature, so they won't bother reading this thread, and in the same way, if you say that it's a burial site they are rejecting it because they don't trust you and they think that it's only a bump, hill or whatever.
I think you are partly right, some people will have made their mind up and no answer from Niantic will change their mind. However there are some reviewers who believe that everything needs a sign even if I can provide plenty of evidence of historical importance.
lastly there was a comment in the recent AMA about punishing bad submitters, the concern is that if good submissions continuously get rejected then People submitting these subs could lose subs or whatever punishment because reviewers can’t see past the initial picture and read the historical information about the sub.
Even an official municipal park, which amounts to nothing more than "landscaping", we cannot submit it (no matter how lovely the gardens or berms may be). There has to be something else.
If the "ancient" construction effectively amounts to nothing more than hills or landscaping, then unfortunately I don't see how it alone qualifies.
Do you think Stonehenge is a natural feature?
while it’s an obvious example of not a natural feature this is what I’m talking about, someone had a 4000 year old Neolithic stone rejected despite having links to the Megalithic website with details of why that stone is historically/culturally important.
Be careful here... the guidelines do specify that natural features ("lake, river, stream, mountain, volcano, waterfall...") by themselves are not eligible, and that in those cases a manmade sign that points out the feature can be acceptable. That is not the same thing as saying that there "has to be" a sign for something that is not a natural feature.
I was half asleep when I wrote this and quickly realized I had replied under a different context. We need a delete function lol
Another thing to add-in here.
In the UK (I'm not sure about other countries), we have a several cairns dotted around high-rise points, moors and such and those tend to do really well in terms of consensus votes. Is a cairn a natural feature? essentially it's just a pile of rocks, each rock put there by humans passing by (man-made?) but still, it's several (lots) of rocks brought together without a sign, but yet we seem to like those.
In comparison, a river (not a canal, 2 different things) tends to be, or is something forged by nature itself, the river runs in whatever is the easiest direction from A to B, however pieces of nature brought together/made by humans, ancient rocks, burial mounds etc I don't think should be classed as natural feature.
What I mean is, official backing wont help, most people will reject on the photo alone without goi g to even look at the supporting info, yes official comment will help I general, but from what you've described, you have as much info as it's possible to have, the issue is lazy reviewing
If the issue is lazy reviewing then an official response will help cover people if their subs get rejected from being punished from being rejected. I’m down to the last few things to submit now and ancient Stone Age monuments is all I be left with to submit so I will get left with a choice of try to submit and be potentially punished if they get rejected
They weren't asking about a group of rocks that were shaped by man, moved by man, rearranged by man into a series of circles.
They were asking about a very large pile of dirt.
Read the original post again, I mentioned ancient stones in that post. It was seeing a rejection of a 4000 year old Stone that prompted the original rant
You explicitly called out ones that currently amount to nothing more than "small hills". Those are VASTLY different to acceptable things such as still-standing ruins.
No I didn’t, which shows you didn’t read my post. I also mentioned barrow mounds and hill forts but I also mentioned Neolithic stones
These last comments show that even if Niantic says "Stone age monuments are valid" that won't lead to anything useful: some people will try to nominate "small hills" stating that they are thousand years old and other people won't believe that and we're back to square one.
I think that clarification from Niantic is useful only from the reviewers point of view, to get clarification about something that it's not clear. Adding a comment here about generic "stone age monuments" without valid examples won't help your nominations.
Quote: the biggest issue is since they are so old they tend to look like small hills (Barrow Mounds and Hill forts particularly) and some Neolithic Stones all get marked down as “natural feature”
A hill or mound or pile of dirt would not be in and of itself anything more eligible than any other landscaping.
the issue is due to age most of these features are natural elements or have become them. how ever most of these monuments do have signs explaining what they are for education purposes that can be submitted as valid
Barrows, burial mounds, neolithic stones, etc aren't natural features. They're literally the earliest examples of man-made locations. Just because they don't have a sign doesn't mean they should be ineligible, especially when with so many, you can tell that they're man-made.
Personally, I'd say with sufficient evidence that they would be eligible.
The gardens in my local park aren't natural features. They've even got recognizable human-made items like brickwork holding in the potting dirt. But these are STILL not something we can submit.
You can't submit a pile of dirt, not by itself.
If you're sufficiently worked up about it, feel free to work with your local historical society and convince them to raise enough funds to erect some of those signs.
The gardens in your park aren’t recognised listed monuments on interesting historical and cultural value. I’m talking about things that have are thousands of years old and of great interest to archaeologists
It's a LONG-established principle in Wayfarer that "old does not equal submittable". Get yourself a sign, and we're all happy.
So archaeologists can visit a site, write up a paper on it but if there’s no sign you aren’t interested? Is that what you are saying
No. I'm very interested. I like history. I like exploring places, using Ingress or whatever to help me find some of the coolest **** around. But Niantic has some things that are strictly defined in a way that precludes your proposed Mound Of Dirt from being submitted.
I mean, we are STRICTLY disallowed from submitting a municipal park, and it doesn't matter how fancy they made the landscaping or topiary. Without a sign or a recognizable not-common object (ie. not even a park bench qualifies), we CAN'T submit the park. There are at least two named parks in my city that lack signs, but are otherwise lovely spaces to spend your time; these are simply not going to be part of Niantic's wayspot database either.
Your Mounds, no matter how old or how fancy, are otherwise just the same: a large pile of dirt, some ancient landscaping.
With a sign, your (specifically the "Mounds") proposal is allowed under Niantic's rules. Without it, unfortunately, it is not. @NianticCasey-ING may be able to help re-write their rules, but as written, your time is better spent either looking elsewhere or in working to get your local historical societies involved.
Barrows, hill forts, and the other things that @YouLostAStar-ING has mentioned have historic merit though.
Stonehenge, by your logic, would be a natural feature since it's just "stones", and that's a wayspot, and just as valid as the other things YouLostAStar has mentioned.
@0X00FF00-ING you deleted your comment when I went to reply to you but this is what I was saying
”now we are getting somewhere, for me whether it’s a Neolithic Stone Circle (or stones), an Iron Age hill fort or a Saxon burial mound they are very important to our cultural heritage and of historical interest than for me they tick so many boxes. I do understand why people look at it and say natural feature but they are definitely man made for a reason.
this is why I started this thread in the hope of an official answer from a Niantic mod.
I didn't delete it, I edited it twice in a very brief period and it's now waiting to be "moderated"
tl;dr: I like history, and use these games to explore. We can't even submit a park (ie. landscaping, topiary) unless something else human-made is there. And these "Mounds" are literally just "old" landscaping, forbidden by current Niantic rules.
They're not "old landscaping" as you put it though. They're locstions of historic value and interest.
We're also not supposed to submit "locations of ...", but the "..." itself. Specific example, a roadside "scenic lookout". We CANNOT submit the "scenery" but we CAN submit the sign AT the lookout that talks about the scenery.
A hill of dirt that was moved by very-long-dead people IS still just "landscaping", that just happened to have occurred untold ages ago.