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/
Name signs for places that are already poi.
nobbynobbs1st-PGO Posts: 54 ✭✭✭
Sorry if this has been asked before but I'm seeing lots of nominations for this.
To explain, a large park/recreation ground which has stops for the football club/rugby club/ playground/ clubhouse/ basketball court etc. Then you get a nomination for the signs on the road which is just the name sign for the football club next to the one for the rugby club. These are normally at the vehicle entrance. Or a tennis club where the courts and clubhouse are already stops but you get a nomination for the name sign on the entrance road.
I just feel that they are effectively a duplicate of the actual place.
This was covered,.to an extent, in a thread I started about park entrances and signs.
The jist of what Casey said was that if there's multiple signs/entrances that all look the same and you can't differentiate them from each other then only one should be allowed and the rest marked as duplicates.
My understanding is that if the sign is far enough away from the place it is referencing then it should be okay to submit both the place itself and the sign. For example, a viewpoint for a large object. Or if the place is, say, a large estate (such as a manor house) and there are multiple signs each giving different snippets of information.
Secondly, for particularly large parks it should be okay to submit each entrance. Often, if this is the case, the signs will have a "you are here" marker on them - which differentiates them from other such signs and information boards. Without either the distance factor or a "you are here marker" I think it would be harder for each park entrance be accepted.
Niantic recently updated the language of this guideline to include an example of an eligible sign to an existing Wayspot.
For example, a sign for a monument could be a separate Wayspot than the monument itself.
I take that as signboards for objects only and not for buildings or places. But the sign still needs to be a significant distance from the object itself, otherwise it will be a duplicate. Therefore, the signs you describe would be duplicates.
Hi, yes this is not a discussion about how many park entrances there may be.
The signs tend to be on the other side of the car park to the actual places.
This is significantly different from a sign for a viewpoint etc which tend to be a distance away and effectively a route marker.
I know it's not about park entrances but I was using Casey's response in that thread as an example since I did mention about signs there as well.
If the signs are a significant distance away, I can't see there being an issue.
I see three distinct types of signage that could be discussed:
1) signs that point out a distant object from a viewpoint, such as a sign at the base of Mount Rushmore or overlooking a monument. I understood that guidance to refer to these
2) entrance signs at a park, whether one or multiple.
3) signs on highways that point distant travelers to the correct road that leads them to a park or tourist attraction.
In my area, we have a lot of the third type... small churches place directional signs on the main highway, telling drivers to turn here then proceed some distance (often a mile or more) down local roads to the church. I'd be hard pressed to see these as valid wayspots in moat cases. Actually, I end up rejecting a large number on roadsides simply because they have no pedestrian access.
So this doesn't really answer my original question because I was aware of it. Yet continue to see nominations and poi that have been approved which are just as I've described.
Actually it does answer. Your opinion is you think signs create duplicates when they don't.
Duplicates are defined. A duplicate is being exactly the same submission with the Title, Description and Photo all being the same. It is a system catch to ensure you are not rushing through the process.
A sign for an existing wayspot is allowed. It is not a duplicate. It could be if when approved it is too close to another wayspot, than Niantic automatically assumes it is a duplicate and they add the photo to the other existing wayspot.
Your opinion should say can niantic confirm Signs for existing wayspots are truly allowed. When that answer is yes Niantic already has it in wayfarer as guidance saying it is allowed..
Reviewing a Sign for a church that is new with an existing approved submission of a church that is live in the game. Visually they are totally different. They are allowed both the sign and the building. That isn't a duplicate. Does that make sense to you?
IMO, I'd probably tend to rate as follows...
That is your opinion. Please let Niantic decide.
I would pass the sports clubs, but I wouldn't pass the markers to the clubs. The club itself is obviously of cultural importance, however the markers directing people to club are not points of interest, they do not represent the club or the activity itself, they are just generic signs guiding people to the actual point of interest. Same thing for churches or anything else.
If the sign had some historical or education information about the club, yes, then that would be interesting.
Parks are accepted with lots of signs because a park is a community gathering space and the signs represent the park. The sports club is the community gathering space/cultural point of interest, not the sign telling people that the club is located within the reserve somewhere.
No they haven't.
They've said a sign for a significant place is acceptable at a different location, which I understand and have no issues with.
I'm not arguing for one or the other just trying to get clarification on a point.
Things like church signs are a bit different as they can be ornate and unique and exist as a separate poi in themselves.
The items I'm referring to are, for instance: smalltown United football club where the clubhouse has a poi, the pitch has a poi and 20 metres on the other side of the car park is an ordinary square sign saying " smalltown united". Nothing special or unique, but I've seen lots accepted. If the consensus is that all of these name signs should be accepted I am happy. it's a huge stretch to say these are the same as a sign for a national park located a mile from the entrance.
Which is your opinion and I'm NOT describing the ones at significant distance! I exampled the significant distance as being DIFFERENT from the ones I'm describing.
The problem is that wayfarer reviewers often see submissions that are far away from their actual play/work/home location. So they don't know enough about the current situation. In my opinion the biggest issue is legacy wayspots. People see things in the various games and think their local 'poi' has the same chance of getting through wayfarer. People in Wayfarer see the legacy poi's and think it's a valid one and vote them through.
It is also frustrating to see how much effort correcting these mistakes are. Around here a new school was built. There's a playground. Someone took a picture with their back to the school for the POI and the surrounding area. I knew there was a new school so I rejected it in wayfarer, but it got through anyway. So I reported it, as did several others and you get the default reply that it is a valid POI.
Now we have to open up topics on these forums after the rejection to get it sorted. It's silly and frustrating. Especially since this is happening on a very large scale. Outdated streetview + pictures that are taken in a way on purpose to get the POI through. Disheartening.
To be honest the problem is that anyone can review and the effort made to educate them is minimal. The time and effort made to create good guidelines is also quite minimal.
So, a limited few chat and argue on this or other forums achieving very little unless one of the people on the Niantic payroll decide to pop an opinion. The process is not productive, prone to " he who shouts loudest wins" results and, unless it's a very rare occasion, is not broadcast to the rest of the people playing.
Which means we're going around in circles and are destined to continue to face poor reviews and poor submissions. All the while Niantic continue to get money for very little effort.
So my question doesn't get answered, we all continue to apply our own personal guidelines and it's luck if a nomination gets approved.
While I agree that input from NIA would clear up a lot of these questions, they will still get asked time and again. The amount of people that actually submit and review far outnumber the people actually looking here, or anywhere to get information on guidelines. They just review and submit as they see fit. That's the same reason you can submit the same **** submission 10 times, and it might get through on any of those tries.
To be honest, it would be far easier for everyone if we only ever reviewed things within a 15-20 mile radius. Then you can continue to have the local discussions with all the local unofficial agreements that already exist and never be troubled by opinions of people in faraway places.
By the way, I'm only being a bit tongue in cheek
Then a lot of locations will never get their nominations approved, including my own.
If people understand visually unique is really locally visually distinct. Then it wouldn't be an issue with reviewing far away distances. Because you can tell if the submission is nearby is similar to others visually.
Sorry, my point was that more guideline decisions seem to be made locally or on subset forums. There are so few people actually using this official one with so few niantic decisions that it makes it a bit pointless.
No one can really answer my question unless I accept one of the louder regular users personal thoughts.
So we all continue to review based on our own interpretation and players just have to hope for luck as to who sees their nominations.
We are at a vague position of "if they are a distance apart" if we are talking about significant places. So no clarity on my question the details of which have been explained if you choose to read the thread.
Your original post.
To explain, a large park/recreation ground which has stops for the football club/rugby club/ playground/ clubhouse/ basketball court etc. (As describe are all visually unique from one another to be considered allowed.)
Then you get a nomination for the signs on the road which is just the name sign for the football club next to the one for the rugby club. These are normally at the vehicle entrance. Or a tennis club where the courts and clubhouse are already stops but you get a nomination for the name sign on the entrance road. (These are signs of existing wayspots as long as they appear different from other Wayspots nearby they are accept.)
As describe all of your suggested conditions have criteria to accept.