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/

Contradiction in the guideline on play areas

Hi all,

I’m not sure whether this question is duplicate or not. Please inform me if it is a duplicate question.

I found that there is a contradiction between the October 2019 version and the January 2020 version of Niantic Wayfarer clarification.

In the October 2019 version of clarification, Niantic declared that:

If this is a publicly accessible play area in the mall, yes. If it's part of a commercial business, no.

In the January 2020 version of clarification, Niantic declared that:

Commercial play areas; review them as you would any business.

In the October 2019 version of clarification, if the play area is not publicly accessible, it is definitely ineligible. There is no grey area. However, in the January 2020 version of clarification, the same play area still has a chance. If it is a tourist attraction, hyper-local spot, visually unique equipment, or has historical or cultural significance. It would be eligible. 

The followings are some cases that may be eligible in one version of clarification and ineligible in the other.

Case #1


  • brief description:
    • Being one of the highest slides in the country, the slide lies in the shopping mall. Its design is inspired by the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk".
  • Is it a play area?
    • Maybe, some might say that it is a single facility, not a play area.
  • Is it publicly accessible?
    • No.
  • Is it visually unique?
    • Definitely yes.
  • Is it a tourist attraction?
    • Yes, it is featured prominently in travel guides.


Case #2

  • brief description:
    • Located in the famous child-friendly hotel in the city, this giant slide is one of the featured facilities in the hotel. Along with the hotel, the slide is also in the travel guides.
  • Is it a play area?
    • Yes.
  • Is it publicly accessible?
    • No. For the guest who has a room, It’s free. The others should pay for the ticket.
  • Is it visually unique?
    • In my opinion, yes.
  • Is it a tourist attraction?
    • Yes, it is in travel guides.

Best Answer

  • Skywalkered-PGOSkywalkered-PGO Posts: 103 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2020 Answer ✓

    As I understand it, the January 2020 one supersedes the October 2019 one.

    If it's in a shopping mall, and it's freely accessible to everyone, then it's pretty much an eligible waypoint.

    If you need to pay to use it, either explicitly (though an entrance fee) or implicitly (it's assumed you'd only be able to use it if you interact with an associated business, e.g. a bar, restaurant, or hotel) then its eligibility is questionable and it should judged on the merits of play area itself. A couple of swings outside a bar probably wouldn't count, but something unique or noteworthy, such as both of your examples, would.

Answers

  • I'm not sure why the focus on "Publicly accessible".

    The concerns with access are safety, can you safely walk up to it and touch it.

    The othe main concern for access is prp. Is it on private residential property, single house on a lot where the individual home owner owns the house and the land it is on.

    If it's inside a mall or hotel it has safe access and is not prp.

    You have to pay to get into a lot of places that are full of portals like zoos, theme parks, State Parks, National Parks. The fact that you have to pay for access is not a reason for rejection.

  • phi2458-PGOphi2458-PGO Posts: 164 ✭✭✭

    Hi, @CurieUSGlo21212-ING thanks for the answer.

    I'm not sure whether I understand the guidelines correctly.

    Honestly, I’m not a native English speaker. In my native language version of Oct. 2019 guidelines, it declared clearly that for the play areas, reject it if you have to pay.

    In my opinion, the rule makes no sense. I think it is reasonable to use higher stander for the nomination of business, but the nomination of business could not be a reason for rejection.

    Please let me know if I misunderstand the guidelines.

  • Skywalkered-PGOSkywalkered-PGO Posts: 103 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2020 Answer ✓

    As I understand it, the January 2020 one supersedes the October 2019 one.

    If it's in a shopping mall, and it's freely accessible to everyone, then it's pretty much an eligible waypoint.

    If you need to pay to use it, either explicitly (though an entrance fee) or implicitly (it's assumed you'd only be able to use it if you interact with an associated business, e.g. a bar, restaurant, or hotel) then its eligibility is questionable and it should judged on the merits of play area itself. A couple of swings outside a bar probably wouldn't count, but something unique or noteworthy, such as both of your examples, would.

  • phi2458-PGOphi2458-PGO Posts: 164 ✭✭✭

    Hi @Skywalkered-PGO,

    Thank you, I get it.

    I wrongly rejected the second one because I didn't notice that there were new guidelines. I'm sorry for my mistake.


  • This is how I understood it.

    The October 2019 clarification states that "publicly accessible areas in the mall" are acceptable, but if it's part of a commercial business, no. The beanstalk slide in your example is still publicly accessible even if you have to pay to use it as it's part of the mall attractions, so it should be eligible. Paying for entrance fee to use the beanstalk slide does not mean it is not publicly accessible. But if your slide is inside a commercial business, like say, the play area inside McDonald's or some generic fast-food restaurant, then it's not eligible.

    The January 2020 clarification refers specifically to those businesses that are actual dedicated play areas themselves. Like those play places where you can pay to leave your kids while you go shopping or while you're in the casino. In those cases, you should evaluate the business itself -- is it a local hyperspot, does it have cultural significance, etc.


  • The October 2019 clarification says that if it is a publicly accessible play area in the mall, it is acceptable, but if it's part of commercial business, it's not. In the case of your beanstalk slide, it's part of mall attractions, so it is "publicly accessible" even if you have to pay to access it. So it should be eligible. But if your slide is inside a commercial business like, say, the play area inside a McDonald's or a generic fast food restaurant, then it's not eligible.

    Personally, I think the slide inside the hotel may also be eligible especially if it's in local tourist guides. It is still technically publicly accessible. But it will be reviewed depending on all the info you present in your nomination, so you have to make sure you include good justification and information.

    The January 2020 clarification refers specifically to businesses that are actual play areas themselves. Like those places where you pay to leave your kids while you go shopping or go to the casino. For those cases, you evaluate them like normal businesses -- are they a local tourist or hyper spot, is there cultural significance, etc. (These will likely fall under generic businesses most of the time.)

  • phi2458-PGOphi2458-PGO Posts: 164 ✭✭✭

    Hi @SavageBuneary-PGO,

    It seems that I didn’t get the meaning of “publicly accessible” right, yet I’m still a bit confused. In my opinion, malls fall into the category of commercial business, just like fast food restaurants. As a result, we should review the play areas of malls and fast food restaurants in the same way. Even if the mall is not a commercial business, the beanstalk slide itself would be because it is necessary to pay to use it.

    As far as I know, the eligibility of the fast food play area is still uncertain. There is a discussion about it in another post. Anyway, I agree that those cases may fall under generic business. It hard for them to get accepted.

Sign In or Register to comment.