Picnic area next to a loch

I'm not entirely sure on if this is worth submitting g or not, its a permanent picnic table area with a view onto a loch next to it. So it meets the good place to take a seat while exercising and would be a nice place for people to congregate (when that's allowed again)



Tagged:
«13

Comments

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I get what you're going for, using the benches as a proxy for the area, but the picnic benches are just generic mass produced objects, not going to make it through.

    Is there a sign for the area ?

  • gazzas89-INGgazzas89-ING Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    Nah, I looked for that, no signs (unless a no swimming signs counts lol) and yeah, I do agree the benches are mass produced, but it is the picnic area, rhe view and the place to sit while exercising I was going for instead of just the benches

  • Pennry-PGOPennry-PGO Posts: 41 ✭✭
    edited April 2021

    Designated picnic areas are supposed to fall under "places for social gathering". Since this is several tables together, it's obviously designed for larger gatherings. If it were just one bench or table, I could see people pushing the "generic" or "not interesting enough" rejection. However, people seem obsessed with signs - so without a designated sign stating the picnic area, it may be a harder sell to get through and may take a few tries.

    Post edited by Pennry-PGO on
  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Genric picnic tables - I would score this very low.

  • RedsoxMark-PGORedsoxMark-PGO Posts: 52 ✭✭✭

    When I see this I focus on the picnic area. It seems to be a great place to visit (nice views of the loch), and multiple tables making it great for social gatherings. How the benches are constructed seems far less important. Maybe not 5*, but I can see 3*. But I think I'm in a minority.

  • gazzas89-INGgazzas89-ING Posts: 88 ✭✭✭

    Based on here yeah, its not a pass, I though that the "good place to sit while walking" in the guidelines might have gotten it through as a 3-4 star but seems cause the benches look generic its bad (didn't realise that how the benches looked would effect the actual submission, but hey ****)

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Good place to sit while walking" is not one of the acceptance criteria. The exercise criteria do include "places that encourage walking," but they say nothing about a place to sit or rest while you're on a walk.

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard , regarding the above POI, if the Loch has a good history which @gazzas89-ING may be able to prove in the support statement, would it be possible to use the picnic area as a proxy for the loch ?

    Thinking about the Nov AMA and natural features it said

    "Good question! It’s true that these are now up for consideration as eligible Wayspots. Famous waterfalls and lagoons, or popular cenotes and lakes are great places to explore. When considering these, think about whether there’s a specific location you can direct people to: a sign, an informational board, etc. "

    The picnic area would be a specific location on the loch, waterfront so going by that it may be enough to pass it as candidate, provided the loch has history etc

  • EvilDoctorSlice-INGEvilDoctorSlice-ING Posts: 42 ✭✭

    @Pennry-PGO makes some very valid points.

    A designated picnic spot next to a loch sounds like a great place to visit and be sociable, even if the benches there are all generic. But this is exactly what the new criteria asks us to do. Don't reject things categorically, but instead consider the value of the wayspot within its cultural context and local meaning. 

    Niantic want to encourage people to explore the world, exercise and be social. I believe that a picnic area by a loch would satisfy those criteria.

    However if you took these exact same generic benches and put them on the pavement outside the local multiplex cinema, I would probably treat them as ineligible. Context matters.

    It would be interesting to get some official feedback on this sort of nomination. (Although part of me fears that any positive feedback will lead to every bench on the planet suddenly showing up in Wayfarer)

  • Moppelkopf0815-PGOMoppelkopf0815-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭

    Ich sehe diesen Ort auch als Stätte der Begegnung und des geselligen Zusammensein. Unbeachtet der Bänke. Diese stehen für mich nicht im Vordergrund.

    EvilDoctorSlice-Ing mag richtig liegen mit seiner Befürchtung, aber, ich halte mal dagegen, dass es auch sehr viele bemalte Stromkästen als Stops gibt. Diese finde ich persönlich nicht alle als uneingeschränkt empfehlenswert.

  • Hey there, @gazzas89-ING, I'll help clarify this. Echoing to @Theisman-ING, general benches (comprising picnic benches) are mass-produced objects and should be deemed ineligible in each scenario. However, this rule does not get applied to memorial benches as they have historical significance.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭✭✭

    With clarification like this, please fold these into a next AMA and the criteria guidelines. These little nuggets of wisdom tend to get lost in the forums otherwise.

    Thanks.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    Hi Niantic Giffard,

    Thanks for clarifying that this is not eligible because the benches are too generic.

    Please can you help me understand why this is not eligible as a good place to explore and socialise? I would have scored this as acceptable due to those criteria - if I was in this location, I can see myself visiting such an area to explore the Loch, and sit at these benches to socialise as part of a visit. I might invite friends to meet me there to explore and socialise together. Please can you help me understand why I am incorrect so I can vote better in future?

  • RedsoxMark-PGORedsoxMark-PGO Posts: 52 ✭✭✭

    Wow. So a lovely picnic area by a lake, which might also have nice walking trails to get to it, should be rejected because of the method of manufacture of the benches.

    And I assume by that logic, any bench on a hiking trail - even one at a fantastic viewpoint - should be rejected if the bench is mass-produced. But a trail marker at the same place is 5*.

    I don't see anything in the guidelines which would lead me to this conclusion.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    I would have done the same as you.... so I really want to understand how to vote in future...

    I don't fully understand why this can be rejected due to the benches looking quite generic while it meets some core criteria, but a playground can be accepted because it meets core criteria despite also being quite generic (one playground looks much like another).

    I hope that this 'reject because it looks generic' advice is only supposed to apply to picnic areas, and not to a range of other frequently accepted waypoints like playgrounds and park gym equipment that all look pretty similar but of course meet other criteria and are accepted.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nothing has been said about "playgrounds and park gym equipment", or "trail markers" or anything else, so why try to extend the comment onto other potential POI submissions? If you went through both the acceptance and rejection criteria I am sure you could find further potential "problems" where the general criteria appear to not be applied to specific types of items, this is why we have a list of things in the criteria.

    The comment and clarification from Niantic applies purely to these "mass produced" picnic benches, which is great. We now have a definitive Niantic opinion for this particular potential Waypoint item. We could do with more of this sort of thing.

  • pkmnsearch2-PGOpkmnsearch2-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2021

    @gazzas89-ING that picnic area should be an easy 5*. Great place to socialize and explore. not each bench lol


    and the confusion with mass produced benchs.. i think it comes from those benches found in USA with small plaques..


    the world is a big place, not just USA

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The problem is, we see far too many submissions of just one or two of these mass produced "picnic benches" submitted as possible waypoints. If we go with "3 mass produced benches make this a great area to socialise" then that just allows any and all nominations with a picture of a picnic bench to be accepted.

  • pkmnsearch2-PGOpkmnsearch2-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭

    well. now, that depends on each to reviewer to evaluate.. for some, 2 tables are enough, for others, they want to see more tables. its up to the reviewer to decide "how many benches qualify to be a picnic area"

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can you help clarify how and why a magical sign or a magical roof makes a, just as equal of a gathering place, eligible?

  • Roli112-PGORoli112-PGO Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You tell us that we are to review on a case by case basis, yet you make a blanket rejection for picnic benches, when sometimes the benches are part of a permanent arrangement for a permanent and according to criteria eligible community gathering area.

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    I just want to know why I was wrong and the context will help me vote better elsewhere. I genuinely am interested in the answer because I do not understand right now and I want to understand.

    I want to know specifically why benches being generic overrides other criteria such as a good place to socialise or explore, where other items being generic does not override criteria, like social or exercise for gym equipment in a park for example (which do often look the same and will be mass produced a bit like picnic tables can be).

    Understanding when to rate generic over other criteria and when not to will help me vote how Niantic wants me to vote and more examples and explanation help me to apply the learnings to other situations. I don't visit the forum to argue or be difficult, I visit to learn how to vote better.

  • pkmnsearch2-PGOpkmnsearch2-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭

    @Roli112-PGO submit as picnic area, not picnic benches.


    picnic areas aren't mass produced lmao or is there a business that sells also the same soil found in the park along with the benches?

  • ElPortalDeNorbe-PGOElPortalDeNorbe-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭

    Yo aprobaría este wayspots. Picnics, Merenderos, son lugares de reunión para socializar de bastante gente.

    A mi me rechazaron una zona similar y me dió mucha rabia.

    Yo cuando me salen, las acepto. No veo nada malo en este tipo de zona que, además, suelen estar en zonas al aire libre y zonas de paseo o de hacer ejercicio.

    Siempre que la foto y el título sean claros y objetivos, deberían ser aprobados.

  • ElPortalDeNorbe-PGOElPortalDeNorbe-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭

    Discrepo. No son bancos. Son el conjunto de los bancos y las mesas lo que forman la zona de picnic. Muy muy socializable, lugar de reunión de mucha gente para pasar el dia, incluso zona de paso de otra tanta gente que hace deporte, pues suelen estar en grandes parques, pinares, bosques, etc.

  • RedsoxMark-PGORedsoxMark-PGO Posts: 52 ✭✭✭

    This is getting confusing.

    This whole thread is about a picnic area. That consists of a layout of picnic benches by a scenic lake.

    In the context of this discussion we then have:


    "NianticGiffard9:10 am

    Hey there, @gazzas89-ING, I'll help clarify this. Echoing to @Theisman-ING, general benches (comprising picnic benches) are mass-produced objects and should be deemed ineligible in each scenario. However, this rule does not get applied to memorial benches as they have historical significance."


    I still believe that a picnic area should be eligible, regardless of how the benches are constructed. I am hoping the above comment only applies if the bench itself (and not the picnic area) is the Wayspot. If it is really true that no picnic areas are allowed, no matter how great the location or the number of benches if the benches are mass-produced, then the criteria should be updated. But this just doesn't make sense to me. Niantic wants to bring people to great places and have them socialize. How does the way a bench is constructed hinder that?

    Or to put it another way - if my submission is saying "come and see this bench", the bench needs to be something special and not mass produced. But if I'm saying "come to this lakeside picnic area".. that should be different.

  • pkmnsearch2-PGOpkmnsearch2-PGO Posts: 249 ✭✭✭

    i just see that niantic user got confused. i will wait for the edit where he explitcly talks about "picnic area" not the benches lol

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

    If its a designated picnic area (ie has a sign for it) it’ll be fine. The problem here is that when trying to use a picnic table(s) as your anchor for the poi they are mass produced and ineligible as nianticgriffon mentioned above. The other problem I see with these picnic tables is that they look like they can be picked up and moved for the seasons. Which would make it seasonal/temporary

  • Pennry-PGOPennry-PGO Posts: 41 ✭✭

    This really sounds like you didn't read the whole thread and didn't evaluate the submission in question as a whole.

    I say again, we're submitting picnic areas and not the benches that they have within them. Kind of like submitting a playground and not each piece of equipment within them (you know, like we're supposed to). Hmm, some playgrounds and ballfields, etc. have some generic benches as part of them for parents and fans. Should I reject them too? They have general benches that are mass-produced objects in them. I mean, I wouldn't reject them, but it sounds like you might want me to.

Sign In or Register to comment.