Advice requested for dog park nomination

I recently got a nomination rejected for a local dog park. I have only been reviewing for a little bit, but I thought that this fit all of the criteria for a community gathering spot - especially since I had to go by this spot at least five times before I found it free of dogs (and people). I submitted it again, but just wanted to get some advice to see what I had done wrong. Incidentally, the next closest wayspot is some statues at the entrance of a bar/club that has been shut down multiple times for the police for criminal activity, so I can't help but wonder how that was accepted, while the dog park was rejected?


  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,625 Ambassador

    Dont submit the same title and description

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    focus on the sign in the actual nomination picture the supporting photo looks fine to me

  • SeaprincessHNB-PGOSeaprincessHNB-PGO Posts: 1,542 Ambassador

    I would accept this. The photo is ugly because its an ugly, muddy day. But it is correct in that it shows me what the place looks like and that it is a dog park. You could get a little closer to the sign in the main photo next time.

    You may just have local reviewers who don't know that dog parks are eligible.

  • I submitted a new nomination for the same spot. Per @LukeAllStars-PGO, I submitted a different title and description. Per @Jtronmoore-PGO, I focused closer in on the sign in the nomination picture. I completed enough reviews to get it upgraded, and once again, my nomination was rejected.

    At the same time this has been rejected twice, my rating has dropped from good to fair. I have tried very hard to diligently adhere to the rules laid out by Niantic, and yet neither my submissions, nor my reviews are accepted. I'm disappointed. Should I submit it again? Or should I just give up? I'm pretty close to just giving up reviewing altogether because it seems pointless.

    Here is my second rejected submission:

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Perhaps the reviewing community think "Dog Parks" do not meet the criteria for a Waypoint. I don't think I would give this a passing score.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 696 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2021

    Could be a regional difference. Here dog parks are accepted and in my opinion should be accepted as a great place to socialize with others.


    For retry I'd suggest giving it a stronger description and support text. Make it clear it's a designated, constructed (fences) and maintained area by the city. Show it's not just a "place for dogs to run free".

    For the support text find a link to show it's an official dog park.

    ps. I liked the earlier support photo that showed also the bench for the owners.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I would definitely work on that description more. I would use something along the following

    "An enclosed area where dog owners can allow their pets to run freely and socializes with other dogs. These areas are designed to promote exercise for both the dogs and their owners along with preventing dogs from becoming aggressive when kept in isolation."

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I found this place on Google Maps. You can kind of tell there is something there on satellite view, but if they gave reviewers the Street View image to look at, they just see a line of trees from the road. You might help your case by using the Google Street View app to place a photosphere at the entrance so reviewers can see it. A lot of reviewers do not know they can exit the default view they are shown.

    I can't tell what the sign says. If it is the name of the dog park, then I would recommend centering the sign in the nomination photo. If it is just instructions, then I like the photo of the gate with the sign behind it to show it is a dedicated area.

    For the supporting photo you need to show the nomination in place with evidence around it for reviewers to see where it exists. I think the first supplemental photo was better than the second. Maybe move even further away to get an even wider view to include some landmarks behind it.

    As was suggested, if you can provide a link to anything that shows this is a dog park in the supporting information, do that. As for the description, I don't think it is that important unless you can add information like the year it was established, or the fact that it is a city park, or something like that. Just don't say anything about playing pokemon there, because that will get it rejected.

    Don't worry about your wayfarer rating, just slow down and wait for the reviews you have done to go through the system and catch up. It doesn't affect your nominations going through.

    As far as the other wayspot, criteria have changed since they began adding portals for Ingress, so you can't go by what is in game already. If it is dangerous, you can request Niantic remove it.

    Where I live, dog parks are pretty much automatic 5* nominations, so I definitely think this will eventually go through. I would have accepted either submission.

  • Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm continuing to try get my local dog park accepted, and now have been rejected a third time (with a third upgrade). I don't really know what more I can do. Consensus here seems to be that this meets the Niantic criteria - and I certainly have seen plenty of waystops and waystop submissions for dog parks. I could write it in German, but since more than half of the waystops I review are in Netherlands or Belgium, I thought it better to write in english.

    The review system seems pretty unequal - and this gets to my issue with the Wayfarer Rating. I'm trying to do my best to analyze and judge submissions based on the guidelines provided by Niantic and the things I read in this forum, but clearly those don't "agree" with what the people here do. I read on here that dog parks are ok, but if I judge dog parks as 5* and I won't get agreement with other people judging in this area. Very confusing.

    FWIW, here was my most recent failed submission:

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Don't tell reviewers what they should do "according to Niantic criteria", that's one certain way to annoy your reviewers. Tell them why this submission is worthy of being a stop, not "you have to do this". Eligible does not mean automatic acceptance. Oh, and get a photo without all those bags of dog **** tied to the fence, I can see me marking this as "1* - Does not seem to be a great place of exploration".

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Dog parks are a great way to exercise (walking with your dog and playing), it is also a great place to socialize (meet up with other dog owner friends). Its a great community spot. I always pass them as long as its a legit park.

    In this case literally take a close up shot of only the sign. Its the recognizable feature there so just focus on the sign dont have any other background. I also wouldnt upgrade this. Although it should be easily passed. Ive gotten so many to pass in my town

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Doubt thats actual dog poop. It more than likely is fresh bags for owners to use 😂 it meets 2/3 eligibilty critera as a socialization spot and place to exercise

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 696 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Dog parks fit the "great place to socialize with others" and "great place to excercise" eligibility criteria.

    Why would it need to fit "great place of exploration" criteria?

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I looked again on Google Maps, and still don't see a dog park at Zoopark. I really think you should place a photosphere showing it exists and that will solve your issues. The Google Street View app is so easy to use that this little old technologically challenged lady can do it. Am looking here: 51.240219, 6.802741

Sign In or Register to comment.