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/
Cemetery Signs
cyndiepooh-ING
Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
According to the Jan 2020 clarification "Not acceptable: Signs at the entrance of cemeteries, cemetery directories, other headstones or memorials (regardless of how visually unique or artistic they are), or funeral homes."
But this wayspot - that I rejected per the criteria - is in my showcase today.
Are cemetery signs eligible, or not?
Post edited by NianticGiffard on
Tagged:
Best Answer
-
Gendgi-PGO
Posts: 3,424 Ambassador
Typically ineligible.
It isn't uncommon for things that do not meet eligibility to become accepted and make it to the "featured" page, which is why we've asked @NianticCasey-ING since this feature was released to modify it.
A "featured" Wayspot is NOT chosen by Niantic and is NOT a reflection of eligibility.
This discussion has been closed.
Answers
Typically ineligible.
It isn't uncommon for things that do not meet eligibility to become accepted and make it to the "featured" page, which is why we've asked @NianticCasey-ING since this feature was released to modify it.
A "featured" Wayspot is NOT chosen by Niantic and is NOT a reflection of eligibility.
Hey there,
As @Genenome1-ING@Gendgi-PGO mentioned, we are currently redesigning the showcase page to better reflect what's expected of a high-quality Wayspot rather than selecting a random location in your local area to display. This feature update is on track to roll out this month (hopefully)!
As you've correctly called out, this Wayspot isn't eligible per the criteria and should be removed. I'll make sure the abuse team reviews this.
Are we now in the habit of removing Wayspots that didn't meet eligibility criteria? I thought those were typically allowed to stay.
@NianticCasey-ING opening up another can or worms with that last sentence.
It contradicts previous statements, too.
Although can't say I'd mind trying to request removal of a bunch of generic benches Niantic accepted years ago that are blocking artwork in my local civic campus.
Thanks for the attention to this @NianticCasey-ING . I don't think this is a case of abuse by the person who nominated the cemetery sign, because they aren't required to take the Wayfarer test to submit. (Although I think everyone should have to.) But it is abuse by every person who reviewed this and decided it was acceptable, and I doubt you have any way to track that.
I have 13,000 reviews under my belt, so not getting an agreement doesn't hurt me that much, but some newer reviewers in our community are having a hard time getting agreements, and then something like this comes up that should be a no-brainer. Was wondering if I had missed a new clarification.
This cemetery sign isn't an old wayspot that is being "grandfathered" in. It's a new submission that shouldn't have made it through the process and is being corrected.
Why would we allow an invalid waystop to stay?
Out of curiosity, what happens in a case like this to people who (rightfully) rejected this waypoint? People who rightfully rejected this, didn't get an agreement - does the system/fix/now count this as agreement if this "stop" is being removed?
The second link I shared was one specifically that the person claimed had been approved since Wayfarer, and thus after military bases were ruled ineligible; bases have almost always been ineligible.
The September AMA specifically asked under what criteria could Wayspots be considered for removal and "should not have been approved" has never been one.
When is it appropriate to report an invalid Wayspot? How can these reports be made if you’re not a business or property owner (or otherwise authorized individual)? What should be avoided when considering whether or not to report invalid Wayspots?
Wayspots that fall under the following categories can be reported via the Ingress Scanner or the Pokémon GO app:
- No Pedestrian Access
- Obstructs or interferes with Emergency Services
- Private Residential Property
- School (up to K12; including Day care/Child care services)
- Permanently removed from the location
- Duplicate of another Portal
For all other cases, we’ll review the location if the (verified) property owner contacts us via the form provided in the Pokémon GO or Ingress Help centers. If you’ve reported a location via the Pokémon GO app or the Ingress Scanner and the request has been rejected, you can appeal the decision in the Wayfarer forum if you have additional proof to share.
My claim is nothing new: any time a Wayspot that "shouldn't have been approved" is reported, the response is that it will remain (unless requested by property owner or similar). There have even been Wayspots shared here that were created through abuse (screenshots of Google Steetview, incorrectly identified English post boxes) - the response has been to keep them.
Thanks for the response. I guess I was confused because they do remove fake and location abuse wayspots when reported. Those, presumably, made it through the review process too, and they don't fit any of the criteria in the Sept. AMA list you cited.
Faked and wrongly located wayspots could be considered to fall loosely under the "permanently removed from the location" criterion.