Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/
We don't expand on the meaning of each other's POI.
We can work it out.
You expand on them and that's what makes the story wrong.
All we have to do is make a clear distinction between each of them.
Most of the problems that arise with Wayspot are due to expansion.
So we have to try not to magnify it.
I'm not from the United States, here we don't have that kind of fire hydrants, so I might not understand this properly. If you stand in one point and look to the right you're obstructing the emergency services, but 20 people can gather to look towards the information board (and covering the fire hydrant) and that's no issue at all.
I could understand if they said: everything in a five meter radius around any fire hydrant must be rejected, I guess that those hydrants are very important to fire fighters and that's OK.
But if the problem about obstructing emergency services depends on the object that you look at, I'm sorry but I don't understand the logic about it.
You appear to be missing the point. This is a discussion about disruption of emergency services. To access either the sign board or the fire hydrant, people will be standing in the same places. Please give me a logical explanation how one of those is more disruptive than the other. The reason that you've stated here clearly isn't correct, as you are standing near the same emergency response infrastructure for both cases. If one is unacceptable for being an obstruction, they both need to be. This is the same reason why a 9/11 memorial at the entrance to a fire station would be rejected for disrupting emergency services. It doesn't matter what the poi is; it matters how disruptive it is.
I've already written about this several comments ago. The liability for Niantic is just plain different if they literally encourage/explicitly allow us to accept fire hydrants. If the POI is not part of emergency services, and is just near by a fire hydrant, it would not create the same type of liability.
@Sugarstarzkill-PGO I think we may finally agree on this. It's about Niantic's lawyers being paranoid rather than there actually being a difference in safety between a fire hydrant and something two feet away from the hydrant. This isn't a rational decision in terms of actual safety, but rather the optics of a one-in-a million shot of them facing a lawsuit because art painted on a fire hydrant impeded emergency servcies.
This. This is exactly what I mean. I understand logically there is little difference but in terms of legality, there is. I mean, look at the warnings we need to have on products. Stuff like "do not ingest" on toxic chemicals lol I guarentee it's a liability reason, even if, like you say, it's a one in a million chance.
Did you know that many Walking Tracks/Trails at National and Regional Parks, especially in mountainous and rural areas also double as Fire Trails? I know for especially in Australia, many walking trails do cross or are collinear to existing fire trails and are often widened dirt paths in the chance that a bushfire breaks out and emergency services are needed to access the area as soon as possible.
For definition, a Fire Trail:
A fire trail is a track identified for firefighters to access areas of dense bushland. They are used by emergency services to establish containment lines, monitor fuel loading and keep homes safe from fire threats.
From the NSW Rural Fire Service website:
To assist with containing and managing fires across the landscape, firefighters need good access. Fire trails are an important part of ensuring firefighters can access fires and safely contain them. They are also used to assist with management of **** fire risk across the landscape. The network that is assessed by the Infrastructure State Environmental Planning Policy will include fire trails which already exist and must remain unobstructed. In some cases, work may be needed to bring these trails up to safe standards.
Above is a Fire Trail located in a National Park. Sure, you're not using the actual sign so to speak, but it does signify something that is
These fire trails are directly maintained and used as a tool by the Rural Fire Service. Just as a fire hydrant is an urban example of firefighting infrastructure, a fire trail in a National Park or rural area acts in the same capacity and still requires its access for the very occasional emergency service (well... maybe not in Australia, bushfires happen too often unfortunately). So if you happen to be on a fire trail in the off chance a bushfire unluckily breaks out, you better pray you aren't obstructing a fire engine speeding through.
It's a long way down the slippery ****.
The green hiker and bicycle suggests their use for recreation is encouraged.
The fact that the hiker and cyclist signs don't have the red circle and line on them indicates that it is intended for recreational purposes.
@Faversham71-ING Sidewalks are, by definition, intended to be used by pedestrians. It's not just permitted-- the sole reason for the existence of sidewalks is for pedestrians to use them. It is their raison d'être.
Sorry - where do sidewalks come into this conversation? There was a recent post on combined fire-trails/hiking trails but I don't remember commenting on sidewalks (or pavements as we call them).
@Faversham71-ING The fire trails argument was made in conjunction with the discussion about fire hydrants. Someone suggested that if fire hydrants (which are usually on or right next to sidewalks) have been declared unsafe then perhaps fire trails should be true. I see a clear parallel between the fire trail argument that they are intended to be used and fire hydrants which are on sidewalks and those sidewalks being meant for pedestrians.
My apologies for being unclear.
In US jargon, pavement more commonly refers to roads.
@NianticCasey-ING so twice you stated that fire hydrants can't be portals, yet when I tried to remove one, @NianticKN-ING said it must stay. https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/6129/invalid-wayspot-removal-appeal
So which way is it? Are they wayspots or not?
The person(s) involved in removal don’t operate under the same rules as we have been told, @NianticCasey-ING , and need to be re-educated by the rest of the Wayfarer team.
This includes situations like the above (things that obstruct emergency services NEED to be removed regardless of any other candidacy and/or grandfathering). That’s just fundamental.
And IF the wayfarer team has changed their minds about fire hydrants NOT being for “emergency services” and thus no longer being ineligible, then that needs to be communicated back to us.
This also includes when other ineligible inadvertently become wayspots due to abuse by submitters, as I keep griping about, I keep getting support from the community about, and Niantic and you personally continue to ignore in other comment threads. Those wayspots which SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED should be removed from the wayspot network, full stop.