It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I think you all are confusing the terms common, with mass produced. Mass produced insinuates that I could run to Home Depot and pick up a footbridge (FYI You can't). But what I can do is go buy some timber and hardware and use a blueprint off the internet of a sturdy footbridge go with my scout troop and go build one. So now my footbridge is common yet still unique, but not mass produced or generic. Do you see the difference?
I would argue that a Gazebo is more often mass produced then a footbridge on a hiking trail. Universally accepted. Most playgrounds are made from mass produced Lego style plug and play pieces. Universally accepted. The Memorial Plaques that are scattered throughout my town, honoring service men and women are usually mass produced. Universally accepted.
You're beating a broken drum here.
I don't believe anyone said blindly accept these. Several of us even mentioned that we have reviewed and rejected "footbridges" , especially when the submission is clearly trying to stretch the common accepted standard. We are saying, in general, these should be universally accepted just as other outdoor structures are, especially in areas where exploration and exercise are the primary activity. The two examples in the threads that are focused on these are great examples of two vary different and unique footbridges that players might find as they exercise and explore their local community. Neither of them should have been rejected under any current standard or guidance.
yah again, generic is not mass-produced. and generic is fine when it's a feature of a public hiking trail (with an added historic background). the simpleness of this footbridge (and the picture of it, too) might not bring you to tears with its beauty and inspire your soul, but it doesn't need to, it's a landmark on a hiking trail and qualifies under exploration criteria.
and honestly in terms of the picture, who cares? it's not of low quality, fully and clearly shows the object in question, and doesn't contain anything illicit. this isn't an art critique site. the submitter doesn't need to be a skilled photographer with an eye for composition. if someone wants to add better pictures later, by all means do, until then it's a terrible reason for rejection.
What historic background? Lol even the op never mentioned anything about that
The funny thing is when people generally say others need to critically think its because other people have varying ideas of what is eligible in terms of there own interpretation of the guidelines. What there really saying is “you need to think exactly like me and approve my nomination”. Where as if you use critical thinking accompanied with that theres no official guidelines about footbridges wether to accept or deny there is a lot of room for interpretation.
What one person may think is acceptable others may not and thats really what we are running into here.
Then with any argument of mass produced/generic they try to compare it to other objects that have been inherently eligible by niantic standards to try and prove that the object itself should be accepted if those are accepted. Which is not critical thinking.
In the end maybe explain who built it, the purpose of it, and any points you have that may make this meet criteria and go from there. Personally I see tons of foot bridge nominations and they are all the same type of build which is why imo they are generic looking or mass produced. Good luck on the nomination
@mrdeadhead-PGO the problem with stating that any generic landmark on a hiking trail is acceptable is that there is no Niantic clarification that I am aware of that backs up this statement. Quite the opposite is true and we are told to reject anything that is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
For example, there's an online timber company that sells a variety of bridge, gates and stiles for use on public trails . By your criteria, are all these acceptable wayspot candidates?
As @Oakes1923-PGO has pointed out, we see mass-produced objects like gazebos, outdoor gym equipment, memorial benches, trail markers and memorial plaques submitted all the time. These are accepted precisely because Niantic have clarified that they *should* be accepted, regardless of whether they meet the rejection criteria for being mass-produced or visually uninteresting.
The only reason this argument about trail bridges is still going on is because in October 2019 Niantic stated that wooden bridges on walking trails met the criteria for being a portal. This position was stated again in the September 2020 AMA. Then in November 2020 they told us to ignore all those previous clarifications and start again from scratch.
Reviewers now seem to be split into 2 groups.
Without a new clarification I don't see this discussion will be settled any time soon.
So how about it @NianticCasey-ING @NianticGiffard. Any chance we could get an official confirmation about whether wooden trail bridges should be accepted or rejected under the new criteria?
Critical thinking requires objective unbiased analysis in order to come to an informed judgement or argument. Much like @EvilDoctorSlice-ING did in his post. Thoughtful well written post outlining the argument on both sides and why the need for a clarification. Not sure I agree with all the finer points but in the end a well thought out post. All I’ve seen in many of the arguments against is a perversion of a fairly straightforward definition of mass produced objects, when the definition we’ve been given by Niantic has literal concrete visual aides.
As many others have pointed out Niantic has indicated that footbridges have been explicitly acceptable in the past. Now if you believe that the new criteria overrides the old that’s fine but the new criteria has said nothing about disallowing them, and they clearly meet a number of eligibility and acceptance criteria, a conclusion that requires little to no mental gymnastics. Yet the conclusion that many arguing against would have us reaching hard for a standard that simply does not exist; that somehow they are mass produced. That’s a definition of mass produced that simply does not exist. Not one we just happen to disagree with but a standard that is irrational and nonsensical.
think about it this way, if this was a 50/50 split then footbridges would be accepted and rejected as much or more then restaurants and coffee shops. And if that were the reality I may concede that point that maybe they could be considered mass produced. Footbridges however are generally universally accepted. I’ve nominated 15 and had one rejected (which was immediately resubmitted and went through on an upgrade). What I’m seeing more from many of your posts (and others of similar mind) is you disapprove of more wayspots and perhaps think the pool has been watered down too much. If that’s your stance fight for that. Make your case for that. But I feel like most of this is grasping for concrete Target ball size straws.
reread the pokestop description maybe
are they on actual designated trails? does a string of them act as trail markers for players? then yes, submit every single one of them.
Hi there! If there is anything interesting/historic about the bridge or maybe if the bridge is architecturally unique, it is eligible.
Generic bridges should be rejected.
How does a submitter and a reviewer determine if a footbridge is generic or not? Do we look at the Wal-Mart add and go from there?
So, name-brand footbridges are good nominations, it’s just the cheaper no-name knock-offs we are supposed to reject. Perhaps we can tell the difference because generic packaging is black and white?
In all seriousness, guidance is only useful if it clearly denotes inclusion/rejection criteria or it illustrates and clarifies the required thought processes.
@NianticGiffard please escalate this issue to the appropriate management, or, if you are simply wrapping an inclined plane around a vertical axis, refrain....
No name brand has nothing to do with it. It is plainly stated
historic/interesting or architecturally unique.
generic would be non-interesting in architectural design and have no historic/interesting thing about the bridge
on a separate note @NianticGiffard could we add this clarification to the top of the criteria section of wayfarer so we have an up to date section with all the clarifications?
Niantic created new eligibility criteria to encourage Wayfinders to stop, think, and decide what places make great Wayspots for their local communities. Their staff members need to stop showing up to make these decisions for us. That was the problem with the old AMA clarifications and I'm disappointed to see that this problem is repeating itself.
That being said, @NianticGiffard stated that "interesting" bridges should be eligible while "generic" bridges should be rejected. I am a dedicated backpacker and hiker, and I am here to make the case that most footbridges are interesting.
Bridges let you cross water and other soggy places to continue along the trail, rather than having to turn back and retrace your steps. They are great places to stop and notice how high the water level is, whether there are fish or turtles or shells or foam or 1,000 maple seeds in the water, what unique water plants are growing nearby. Kids get excited and run back and forth, picking up sticks and rocks and throwing them down into the creek or river below. Moms stop to take pictures and teens stop to take selfies.
Other times footbridges cross roads, protecting you from the traffic zooming back and forth, letting you continue your adventure without fear. Some, my favorites, cross ravines. You can stop and look far down and contemplate what might happen if you took one false step and plummeted to the ground below.
When I review a nomination for a footbridge, I stop to consider all these things, and I decide whether the nomination is a great place for exercise, exploration, or to be social with others. I rate them accordingly. I don't approve all of these bridges, but often imagination and experience allow me to envision how meaningful they might be to the people who encounter them. I don't expect all other reviewers to consider them in the same way, but I do expect them to think and reflect based on the case that each submitter has made in support of the significance of their particular nomination. I encourage you to do the same.
I guess we have to proof "interesting" now... woo **** new buzzword
Thanks for the feedback @NianticGiffard. It's helpful to get some clarification where the new criteria appear to contradict previously issued AMA guidance.
Not really sure I understand the issue people have with identifying generic bridges though. If you can buy it from a manufacturer, or download the plans from the Internet and nail a few planks together yourself, it's probably generic. If the only supporting evidence you've got is "it is a bridge for getting over some water" then it's probably generic.
For example, I would describe all these wooden bridges as generic and would reject them.
However if there is something about the bridge that means it meets some other acceptance criteria then it would be considered eligible, e.g. if the bridge has some notable architecture; if it relates to an historical event; if it is important to the local community; or is locally famous for some reason.
If the name and construction date are written on the bridge, the road bridge is historic enough
If you know where the bridge in the park is, it will be effective as a trail.
Being old is not the same as being historic.
Being old does not make anything eligible.
I agree with you on 1 for certain (that can be bought as is or as a prefab kit from your local lumber yard) and 2 (based on that photo) I might even agree with you on 4 (although it's a bit more intricate). . The others to me are not generic as they span a creek or brook, and essential for use of the trail they might be located on and were likely built by parks crew, local troop, town recreation department etc. This is were adding some supporting details would be helpful, but even on their own I personally wouldn't call 3, 5, ad 6 generic.
I personally don't think @NianticCasey-ING previous message was clearly conveyed in @NianticGiffard message... as some comments show... a lot of people cling on to the idea that most if not all bridges are basic and mass produced and don't look at the bigger picture... where as there's plenty that can make a bridge interesting. Some of us came up with some examples of what we think makes a good candidate and not. @AnsonNIA-PGO maybe you can give the list your blessing or come up with something more clear on your own.
Some good examples:
Some bad examples:
@NianticGiffard I know that this has been about a year since the last comment was made but can you please clairfy the difference between a generic footbridge and footbridge that is not generic?
And don't shout the repeated Japanese quibble "bridges connect communities to communities, so all bridges are qualified and fulfill the conditions for people to socialize".
Only Japanese PGO players would make such a quibble.
I am honestly very annoyed by the flood of ineligible wayspots in Japan because of this.