It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
I just had a soccer field rejected for not meeting criteria and for it not being permanently or a seasonal display. I would like to know how this is happening and how people get away with rejections that don’t match the submission.
Getting something eligible rejected is nothing special.
A soccer field? Can be seasonal but it highly depends on the field itself. If you send some photos of your nomination, we can check its eligibility.
The voting progress and the numbers of reviewers needed for a specific action in nominations is fully unknown.
I’m not playing this game with you. A soccer field next to it was accepted. Hold your reviewers responsible for their actions. We are doing your job for you. Get your act together and be proactive in holding reviewiers accountable
At my local soccer complex, fields aren't permanent. The management moves the locations of the fields each season in order to keep the grass in good condition. That means they repaint lines and publish a new map three times a year (fall, spring, and summer) with different field numbers and locations each season. Though soccer fields are generally eligible, the fields at my complex aren't.
When I review soccer fields, I look for indications that the fields are in a permanent location. I check to see if there are signs, goals, or spectator stands bolted down or embedded in concrete. I check the satellite view and the date that it was recorded to see if the field matches the location in the submission. If nothing matches, I give 1* for location accuracy, which might cause a rejection. Other reviewers might see the same indications and reject for not meeting criteria, because they don't see evidence of a permanent tangible object that placemarks the area. Or, they might reject for temporary or seasonal because they believe that the specific location of the soccer field may change each season.
If you are strictly looking to vent, you've done it. If you are trying to understand why your nomination might have been rejected in order to improve it, there are many people here who can probably help if you share screenshots of your actual nomination.
You know we are also reviewers right? No one thats commented is a niantic employee yet lol
So you went to a team's location where one pitch is already a wayspot (the pitch or did they nominate the club) and you want to nominate their 2nd pitch ?
IMHO 1 wayspot will do in such a case. It's the soccerfields of one club, no need to nominate their training-field if their match-field is right next to it
It is more than obvious that a soccer field must be accepted.
You must meet at least one of the three eligibility criteria
"A good place to exercise"
If a soccer field is not a good place to exercise ...
In any case, send a screenshot of the rejection, because if there is one next to it already approved, I imagine they have marked it as a duplicate
What was the actual submission details ?
There is nothing at all that "must be accepted"
Everything needs to be reviewed
In addition to these, there are also other clues I look for to determine permanence if in doubt : (1) What type of goals are they? As a former coach, there is a type of goal used by local youth teams (here in the US) that is only attached to the ground by a couple stakes, like a tent. (These even move when a hard shot hits the crossbar.) (2) Are the goals lined up facing each other? If you really look, you'd be surprised how many temporary fields exist where the goals aren't perpendicular to the supposed field of play. (3) Does the grass in the photo or supporting photo display signs of use consistent with regular play in the same spot? (If not maintained professionally, of course, in which case the answer wouldn't be in doubt.)
I also look for proof that it isn't a duplicate. Are there really two fields there or just two goalposts? Is this the same field that already has a waypoint in the form of a nearby sign?
I actually think I might have been one of your reviewers, because I reviewed one on Sunday that shared a playing area with a baseball or softball field. And I think it may have been called "Field of Dreams" too. (I remember a soccer field that had a baseball reference.) It appeared permanent. If it's the one I'm thinking about, one goalpost was near third base and the other in far right-center field. The small bleachers were arranged along the left field line so spectators could watch either game. I called it a duplicate because the same field was already a waypoint as the baseball field. But I can see how others might see the permanent baseball backstop and think the soccer goals were temporary, and so reject it that way.
if you did that was not my submission
How would you suggest one does that? I don't know who judged, and how they judged.
Unless you're aiming this at a Niantic employee - in which case: they kind of do (rating system). They do not dig up cases on a basis of 'who comes to shout loudest on forums' - and rightfully so. I'll be the first to admit that a seemingly injust disapproval stinks - but it's part of the process.
it wouldn't have been rejected in that case. It would have been marked duplicate and the email would have indicated as much
This is twisting words to fit a narrative; like my six year old does when he argues with me. Yes, there is nothing that "must be accepted" because reviewers can review any way they choose (without consequence) but I feel like the folks making this argument are the same ones complaining about the quality of submissions and the fact that people will submit anything to get a pokestop by their house. Subsequently complaining that Niantic needs to do something about poor nominators. The door swings both ways, its two different sides of the same argument.
Also if you are truly reviewing to the criteria and guidelines, then a sports field should be accepted, with very few exceptions.
This may be a regional thing. I can't think of a complex where any sports field are not considered "permeant" in the Northeast US. There may be some places where field use is rotated to allow the grass to recover, but that is very temporary, like a few weeks at most. At the end of the day the field is still there. It's a stretch to consider that it would make a field temporary or seasonal. Even if the sport changes that is played on it, its still a multiuse field and promotes exercise. Regardless of what type of goal post sits on the field. Its intended purpose is still promoting exercise. Folks are getting hung up on semantics.
I get the resistance to share the image or submission. Folks love to pick it apart for moronic and nonsensical reasons. The trick is to take the pearls from the folks that are looking to help. I had a soccer field rejected over the winter. It wasn't the best picture but I figured "its a soccer field should it matter that there is a little snow on the field? You can still see the goal posts. " It got rejected. "Does not meet acceptance criteria'. Resubmitted when I could make the picture look pristine and it went right through. Could be as simple as that or you may have gotten caught by agreement fishers. It does not take many to ruin a perfectly acceptable and average submission. It's frustrating for certain but I would resubmit it and I am sure it will go through at some point.
As a community we just have to hope that whatever improvements Niantic is planning on the submission and review process address some of the common issues that we deal with daily.
It is not twisting words, there is NEVER an instant must be accepted candidate.
For anyone to state or believe otherwise shows a complete lack of care when it comes to submitting, review or both.
Everything in a submission needs to be correctly assessed, not think, well this a football pitch, 5* all the way down.
I have rejected soccer fields based on bad pictures, as part of already nominated multisport fields, because the location appeared very incorrect, because of water marks, because of bad text where it said soccer field but was a photo of a basketball court, etc.
Need screenshot of rejected nomination for Real sympathy.
If you want to talk about submissions that are inaccurate, sure, but assuming its a soccer field that was properly submitted then comments like "There is no must accept" are ridiculous.
You and I both know there are things, assuming are submitted accurately, that if you reject you are reviewing incorrectly and trolling.
If I submit a library, its a "must" accept, unless my description or supporting information says something like a "place to get firewood, all books should be burned".
No, again there is no "must accept"
A library is not a must accept, some libraries local to me hold pre schools during term time, that instantly invalidates them as being good candidates.
Every submission needs to be checked and assessed.
You can't juat blithely say something is a must accept candidate, because there is no such thing.
I think this discussion is getting a bit messy.
The important rules for soccer fields are:
In the end, it is quite easy to review. I made a small infographic:
If a building’s sole or primary purpose is to serve as a children’s school or Scout hut, it is ineligible as a way spot. But a public library does not ‘instantly become ineligible’ while continuing to be a library.
Does the building serve as a library only on weekends, holidays, and summer vacation? The building is a school with dual use. Does the library offer a room for daycare during exams? Isn’t it still a library?
If public structures are this chimeric does it work the other way, too? The Elementary School instantly becomes eligible on Voting Day, as it serves as a polling station and no classes are held. Ditto every weekend, holiday, and all summer. Likewise when it’s an emergency shelter?
@Oakes1923-PGO I am sure that soccer fields vary greatly from place to place. I am in the Midwest, and while many soccer complexes have permanent fields, not all do.
Here are a few satellite views of just one small portion of my soccer complex. I just toggled from flat to elevated to show the wildly different field layouts at the same physical spot at two different times.
For the first season, half the area was plain grass, while the other half held four Peewee soccer fields, probably numbered fields A, B, C, and D. In the second season, the same area held a single U12 field, probably Field 4. I don't have a live satellite view for today, but right now, in the middle of the summer, the whole area is literally a field of plain grass with no chalk lines or goals. Who knows what will be done with the area when fall soccer begins?
My complex has Wayspots at the main sign for the complex, at the playground, and at the concession stand. These all have permanent, fixed locations. But I don't believe the constantly moving individual fields are eligible. How would I name and describe my submissions? Where would I place pins?
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
Sorry but even if a Public library holds classes, its intended purpose it still a public library and they are expressly allowed per Niantic. They went through this with a scout hut discussion. I don't care if your local library performs surgeries, sacred rituals. Its a library, its a place for information. It is not a k-12 school, those are school libraries.
You're attempts at trolling are impressive but the rest of us see through this. If any reviewer comes across a Public Library and its a properly formatted submission, and you as a reviewer reject it for "does not meet criteria", then you as a reviewer are not reviewing to the guidance and standards from Niantic.
So you are correct, there is no "must approve" since as a reviewer you have the option to not follow guidance and standards. Just know that by doing that you are hurting the community.
So this gets into common sense voting for me. If I submit a soccer field, or I read that someone submits a soccer field, I am submitting and would assume that they are submitting a proper soccer field. Standard size with standard goal posts, or at least an area that can house one and its the intended purpose for said area. In your example there is clearly one main field. For soccer tots, or youth soccer, or whatever name you want to attach to it they may have set up smaller soccer fields (my sons, 4&6, play on similar size fields)those are very temporary and I, and most reviewers I believe, would not consider them individual soccer fields on their own. If you tried to pass off 4 wayspots on the premise that they are four distinct soccer fields that would be disingenuous.
With that said however if you submitted the area as a whole and those where what was up when the photo was taken, and it included an explanation that this is a soccer field, currently set up for youth events, I would not reject as being temporary. The fact remains, even on your example, that a field is still present. Intended for soccer use in this case. But if next week it was a lacrosse field, or football field, or field hockey, or ultimate Frisbee, all would still be considered eligible and the field itself is still eligible and its intended purpose is still exercise. This still meets the burden of proof for it to be Accepted. Anyone who would reject this as temporary is not reviewing to the provided standard.
I'll provide a different example. There is a church in town in our historic district with a playground, basketball court and sports field behind it. The field is truly multiuse and over the course of a couple weeks you will see varies different sports played on it. The church, playground, basketball court, field, and even a historic district sign are all wayspots, all with a few hundred yards of each other. Much like your example, there may be three youth soccer games being payed on the same field. The field itself is still eligible. I believe the portal is even called "St Mary's Multi-Purpose Athletics Field".
Now if there was another field behind that one. With its own layout and clearly defined space I would also be in favor of submitting that field as well. I know folks differ on the opinion there and this is a place where Niantic has typically been very vague on acceptance guidelines and allowed the community to decide. Which I think is fine. Its up to each community in that case to decide what is acceptable given those circumstances.
I guess in closing my thought can be boiled down to this, the boundary markers for any field can fade or be mowed away, but the field itself and its intended purpose still remain regardless. They still fit the criteria of a great place to exercise. So the next time you see a submission with soccer net and some faded lines, consider the intended purpose of the field and not the fact that it looks like its been a couple weeks since the grass was mowed and the lines redrawn. Its still permanent, the field will be there tomorrow, next week , and next year.
There is no trolling, but it does amuse me that you have read the scout hut discussion and chosen to ignore the points that do not suit your narrative.
Yes, moving fields are still great places to exercise no matter where the lines are drawn, but the acceptance criteria clearly require "a permanent physical, tangible, and identifiable place or object, or object that placemarks an area." The lack of any such permanent placemarker is what leads me to consider the fields at my complex unacceptable.
So wouldn’t a landscaped field which looks like some sort of athletic field be a permanent tangible and identifiable place? If you told someone today “meet me at the soccer field” “at such and such park” would they wonder where you are going because right now the field is empty? Your perception is that you need that “thing” there. In reality the field can be the “thing”. Not advocating that you take a picture of an empty meadow and pass it off as an athletic field but this is where you would hope common sense wins the day.
Are you missing this one or was it explicitly invalidated by a later AMA or clarification?
Q5: In the December 11th AMA, NIAOps confirmed that we should treat scout camps and installations as schools because of the target age range. This raises some questions regarding youth clubs and centres - should we be treating them as schools as well and rating 1* overall? If this is the case, is there any chance that the criteria can be updated please as there are a lot of scout huts, youth centres, etc. making their way through OPR.
A5: According to NIA OPS, “If it is only for K12 age children, it should be rated with a one star. If it is for adults and kids it can be rated based on the other criteria.” They also add, “We are updating the guide based on these questions and discussions we see in the OPR G+ Community. Post in the G+ Community if you have not already.” https://plus.google....
I read that as a meaning a library that also happens to host a daycare or preschool out of a specific room to be eligible. Apologies if I'm missing a different clarification. But also this is way off topic for a soccer field.
Multiuse sports fields are quite common where I review. Basketball court, fútbol sala, fronton... and have names of the same.
When the spaces are clearly delineated, separate nominations are fine. When they are not, then one spot makes the most sense. (When people place wayspots strategically , then they end up screwing over other nominations at times because second nominations become hard as they do not show up.)