Multiple Entrances For The Same Park
I've noticed an increase in various entrances being submitted for the same parks constantly.
What's the ruling on this? I personally don't see what criteria an entrance as meeting criteria, and surely if there's already a wayspot for the park (I.E. a sign on one of the entrances) then the entrances themselves would be duplicates?
Best Answers
-
Senmana-ING Posts: 129 ✭✭✭✭
Replied once but it didn't seem to work.
Totally agree with @NicoSolheim-ING
Seeing loads of generic entrances with titles "entrance #1" "entrance #2" etc. Often nothing more than a gap in a fence.
There only needs to be one Wayspot to represent the park. Others are a duplicate.
-
TheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭
A park sign is simply a reference point for the park. It is not in itself eligible as a Wayspot. If you nominate multiple signs at each park entrance, I would only accept one and mark the rest as duplicates.
-
NorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm meaning sign as in a wayspot for the park itself, not as a "Welcome To This Park Sign" wayspot
-
Faversham71-PGO Posts: 1,140 ✭✭✭✭✭
Unless there is something special about a particular second entrance (nice gates, pillars etc. ) that makes it POI worthy in it's own right then just one.
-
Senmana-ING Posts: 129 ✭✭✭✭
But that's referring to signs for Churches and stuff like that. For example, the Church itself can be a Wayspot, and if a significant distance away, a sign representing the Church would be eligible too, especially if it gives extra information about the church, what services it runs etc. But I wouldn't accept "Church sign #1" "Church Sign #2" dotted around various entrances to the churchyard if they all looked the same.
-
grendelwulf-ING Posts: 301 ✭✭✭✭
Same. The signs are just a proxy for the park itself. Only one needs to be a poi.
-
NianticCasey-ING Posts: 538 admin
Hey folks,
There are a couple of considerations to make here, but in general I stand by my previous guidance: Wayspots should not be "as many locations as possible but rather unique, interesting, artistic or notable local hotspots where people could gather or learn or discover something about their community.
In order for multiple entrances to the same park to be considered eligible, they would need to be either unique and differentiate-able from one another or far enough from one another to truly be independent from one another. The same sign at two different sides of a small park would not be far or unique enough to be considered separate Wayspots.
Answers
Replied once but it didn't seem to work.
Totally agree with @NicoSolheim-ING
Seeing loads of generic entrances with titles "entrance #1" "entrance #2" etc. Often nothing more than a gap in a fence.
There only needs to be one Wayspot to represent the park. Others are a duplicate.
A park sign is simply a reference point for the park. It is not in itself eligible as a Wayspot. If you nominate multiple signs at each park entrance, I would only accept one and mark the rest as duplicates.
I'm meaning sign as in a wayspot for the park itself, not as a "Welcome To This Park Sign" wayspot
Unless there is something special about a particular second entrance (nice gates, pillars etc. ) that makes it POI worthy in it's own right then just one.
I was sure that this was answered before, so long as it's a big enough park then entrances can be ok so long as they are like opposite sides or like north, south east and West. So long as it's like the streets name and is clearly an entrance I would accept it
As for the argument of them not being a gathering point, most are, most people who are meeting others atbthe park will gather at one entrance or another
You do realize the criteria to accept?
Signs for locations/objects that are already existing Wayspots - Eligible, if they are a significant distance from the object or location. For example, a sign for a monument could be a separate Wayspot than the monument itself. If a sign for Wayspot is nearby the Wayspot itself, it can be used as a supplementary photo for the existing Wayspot.
Multiple signs for a park are allowed as a result.
Seems a bit redundant to have multiple signs for a single park if they all say the same thing though, which is the point I'm making.
Same with entrances to the park, not that entrances usually meet criteria, in my opinion.
Plus if it's a small park, it's even more redundant to have each entrance as a wayspot, like Park X Entrance North and Park X Entrance West.
That is opinion not written guidance.
But that's referring to signs for Churches and stuff like that. For example, the Church itself can be a Wayspot, and if a significant distance away, a sign representing the Church would be eligible too, especially if it gives extra information about the church, what services it runs etc. But I wouldn't accept "Church sign #1" "Church Sign #2" dotted around various entrances to the churchyard if they all looked the same.
I'm pretty sure that entrances don't meet criteria.
But again, you're twisting the criteria around to meet your agenda once again.
Park entrance signs are different to an information board/sign for a monument.
No that is referring to signs for existing wayspots. Parks are already allowed as wayspots. Hence why multiple signs for parks are allowed.
Same with football or rugby pitches or tennis courts that are next to each other.
I wouldn't accept football pitch 1, 2, and 3 if they're named the same and slap bang next to each other.
Same goes with park entrances.
Park entrances are where people go to use the park. It is the entrance to the park. Yes there may be other entrances. But they are all allowed because that is how a person can use the park properly. You don't want them trespassing in other areas they are not allowed to be at to use the park.
But if the signs are all named "Park X Sign" or "Park X Entrance" and look the same, they are duplicates.
It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
I get that you want more and more wayspots but Niantic have stated before they would prefer unique and interesting ones, not loads of everything that is accepted under criteria.
They are not duplicates. If they have a different number or name. That is a difference in the nomination. Something different from the others via title, description, or photo makes a submission not duplicate. The duplicates you are referring to are actual duplicates that are identical in title, description and photo that are purposely done by Niantic. If it is Park Entrance 1 vs Park Entrance 2, they are totally different wayspots….
They are duplicates though, in the same way that 2 football pitches in the same area would be duplicates or two ends of the same church would be duplicates, because they're part of a series.
Now if it was a wayspot for the park itself, then a wayspot for a statue in the park, and a wayspot for an information board about wildlife in the park, that's when it's different nominations, but if you're submitting multiple entrances to the same park, they are part of a series, under the criteria and the AMAs, meaning: They. Are. Duplicates.
That doesn't mean they meet any criteria. A generic gate or path allowing someone to enter a park isn't a point of interest, especially not when theres several more all the same. It still needs to meet some criteria.
2 football pictures in the same area are allowed. They aren't duplicates. Casey even suggests 2 separate tennis courts are allowed in the same park in her Tennis court response.
Multiple entrances to a park are allowed. They aren't duplicates
Multiple signs for an existing wayspot is allowed. They aren't duplicates.
Churches are allowed the building and the signs. They aren't duplicates.
Different submissions in a park are allowed. Just because a park has too many submissions in your opinion doesn't mean valid ones should be marked as duplicate.
I never said a park has too many submissions, so do not start twisting my words around to fit your own agenda, just because you want to feel justified.
Sports fields next to each other are duplicates. Same with multiple tennis courts next to each other are duplicates.
Entrances for the same park are duplicates, especially when they all look the same and don't stand out from the other entrances for that park.
It is not rocket science to understand that.
Lol. Sick of the twisting words around to fit your own agenda. My agenda is clearing up your mistake.
Tennis courts in opposite sides of the park are allowed. Same would apply with entrances opposite sides of the park.
Tennis courts at opposite sides of a park, yes.
Entrances, no, because the entrances must likely don't meet criteria to begin with, where as tennis courts usually do, unless they're on a K12 or private residential property.
Yep totally agree I'm an ingress player and the guidelines are fairly clear if you can have for example as niantic has referenced multiple times baseball diamonds as long as they are not the same they are allowed. If it applies to that the a park entrance on different roads and places around the park are there for also allowed.
Entrances are unique architecture that promotes community gatherings at a park. You enter the park at the entrance! You don't enter the park not at an entrance. You are arguing over the craziest thing. Park entrances are allowed. I will rely on @NianticCasey-ING Because your logic that park entrances do not meet criteria is ridiculous.
Unique architecture? They're usually a couple of blandly designed stone walls or wooden/metal fences, with or without a gate, depending on where they are. That hardly constitutes as unique architecture.
Now, if a park entrance had say an early Victorian design with dragons carved into it, then yes, unique architecture, but otherwise, if they look all the same, you can't really argue unique architecture.
People generally gather or meet inside the park, it's very rare that myself or anyone I know meet at a park entrance, because gathering at a park entrance usually means getting in the way of other people.
SMH.
Okay I will try breaking this down for you. As simple as I can.
We are not making a tour guide. You are aware of this correct?
Second a entrance for a park is unique architecture that was design for that park. Entrances are easily identifiable. You have to use an entrance to use the park.
Victorian design with dragons carved into would be a highly visual rating for the review only not all categories. Wouldn't discredit other parks and other park entrances.
Not once did I state we were making a tourist guide, but in my experience, a lot of park entrances do not fit unique architecture since they would follow the same designs of the era that they were built in.
What would make them unique is if they had something that made them stand out from the other designs of that era, so say a Victorian style entrance with dragon carvings built in the Edwardian era or the even the second Elizabethian period or perhaps a more Teutonic-meets-French chateau style in Spain.
You are arguing over criteria that is allowed with no reason to argue why they shouldn't be. Niantic deems parks allowed. Well the park entrances are allowed as a result.
Limiting to only Victorian style entrances being allowed is ridiculous and would hurt parks in rural areas, city areas or urban areas. A park that doesn't have some of the funding that other parks have shouldn't limit the park from having something. Because not all parks have what you are asking for. Remember we are globally on here not just regionally. So Niantic is answering global questions not just regional questions. Would these types of entrances you are suggesting be eligible? Yes they would and should be voted on highly. But it doesn't limit other entrances for parks that may appear similar because they are entrances to a park where the community is allowed to socialize and gather at.
I was using Victorian as an example of unique architecture since that's a prime example of architecture that could be seen as unique over a very bland stone wall or wooden fence.
Not your decision. All entrances to parks are allowed because they are parks and Niantic deemed them acceptable.
Here is Nianticcasey confirming what duplicates are. I suggest reading the whole Thread though.
https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/comment/72089#Comment_72089