Avatar

NorthSeaPoet-ING

✭✭✭✭✭

NorthSeaPoet-ING ✭✭✭✭✭

Badges

Second AnniversaryFirst AnniversaryPhotogenic1,000 Comments1,000 Likes25 Answers5 Up Votes500 Insightfuls500 Likes500 Comments250 Insightfuls250 Likes5 Answers100 Insightfuls100 Likes100 Comments25 Insightfuls25 LikesFirst Answer10 Comments5 Likes5 InsightfulsName DropperFirst Comment

Comments

  • Really? He was asking for clarification, not dictating to Casey what should and shouldn't meet criteria. Casey has already made it clear what government builds are eligible or ineligible, but you still insist on arguing over it. It's getting quite irksome now. Just accept Niantic's ruling and move on.
  • Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. If you had been more clear in the beginning, we wouldn't have had to have so much back and forth.
  • I'm not being stubborn. You said we should allow adult things and then said we shouldn't allow adult things, so which is it? Because you can't seem to make up your mind and I'm clearly not wise or knowledgeable in these matters.
  • I'm not being stubborn. You clearly said and I quote: "When actually we are supposed to approve adult things and not children things." but now you're saying that adult entertainment can't be approved, even though it's an adult thing. So, as you can see, that leaves me some what confused because clearly I'm not very wise…
  • Unique architecture? They're usually a couple of blandly designed stone walls or wooden/metal fences, with or without a gate, depending on where they are. That hardly constitutes as unique architecture. Now, if a park entrance had say an early Victorian design with dragons carved into it, then yes, unique architecture, but…
  • But didn't you just say that we should approve adult things, and not children's things? I'm getting so many mixed messages from you here.
  • That still doesn't make eligible wayspots.
  • Tennis courts at opposite sides of a park, yes. Entrances, no, because the entrances must likely don't meet criteria to begin with, where as tennis courts usually do, unless they're on a K12 or private residential property.
  • So, if we're supposed to approve adult things, and not children things, how come clubs that provide entertainment from people in various states of undress aren't allowed? Surely those are adult things that should be allowed by your logic.
  • I never said a park has too many submissions, so do not start twisting my words around to fit your own agenda, just because you want to feel justified. Sports fields next to each other are duplicates. Same with multiple tennis courts next to each other are duplicates. Entrances for the same park are duplicates, especially…
  • They are duplicates though, in the same way that 2 football pitches in the same area would be duplicates or two ends of the same church would be duplicates, because they're part of a series. Now if it was a wayspot for the park itself, then a wayspot for a statue in the park, and a wayspot for an information board about…
  • But they are still government buildings. That. Do. Not. Meet. Criteria. Do you really think that a government office wants loads of people showing up in massive groups outside their offices because there's a raid there or some decent spawns on PoGo? No, they wouldn't, and it would be a great way for police to be involved…
  • But if the signs are all named "Park X Sign" or "Park X Entrance" and look the same, they are duplicates. It's really not a hard concept to grasp. I get that you want more and more wayspots but Niantic have stated before they would prefer unique and interesting ones, not loads of everything that is accepted under criteria.
  • Same with football or rugby pitches or tennis courts that are next to each other. I wouldn't accept football pitch 1, 2, and 3 if they're named the same and slap bang next to each other. Same goes with park entrances.
  • I'm pretty sure that entrances don't meet criteria. But again, you're twisting the criteria around to meet your agenda once again. Park entrance signs are different to an information board/sign for a monument.
  • It doesn't work like that for eligible subs under the criteria set by Niantic. How is that so difficult to understand? They are government buildings, most of which are ineligible.
  • Somewhere that you fill out paperwork isn't somewhere that meets criteria. If that was the case, banks, medical institutions, and so on would be eligible submissions, but they're not because many of them just don't meet the criteria set out by Niantic.
  • It makes perfect sense. Parks are somewhere people go to for a walk or to socialise. Government buildings are not. As he stated, if they don't meet the historic value or have cool architecture, they aren't acceptable. If they were operating from say a building that had been owned by a noble family, then yeah, the building…
  • Government offices that don't meet criteria, have no historic/cultural value, and aren't somewhere you'd take someone that's the visiting the area are things you want to see as wayspots? Smh.
  • Seems a bit redundant to have multiple signs for a single park if they all say the same thing though, which is the point I'm making. Same with entrances to the park, not that entrances usually meet criteria, in my opinion. Plus if it's a small park, it's even more redundant to have each entrance as a wayspot, like Park X…
  • 1) Do they meet criteria? I personally feel that dorms probably don't meet criteria. Os there any historic or cultural relevance to each dorm building that the submitter could state and provide evidence for? If no, I'd say they're a no go. 2) Signs would help dramatically but aren't always needed, depending on the…
  • No, no, no. The "what is it?" categories do not mean eligibility. If that was the case, I could go submit the fire station, the police station, the coast guard, etc. in my town. Besides, would you really want to see somewhere like Inland Revenue offices or DVLA or the local Job Centre Plus as a wayspot?
  • Or in the case of my town, the streetview is years out of date 😂
  • I think in the UK, all places of worship are shut to the public and for any sort of gathering at present anyway, so it would be understandable that priests/vicars/etc probably don't want people hanging around outside them. On the other hand, when I've been into little villages to submit churches there or capture the ones…
  • @mantolwen-ING I think Niantic mean that it should be part of a named trail, however the wording could do with some clarification as some players could take it to mean any old footpath, route, or trail that happens to go over a footbridge. I think since that clarification was added, I've only seen ONE footbridge that was…
  • As do I. I have a post office in mind but it's located at the rear end of a shop, while its sign is outside on the building, within 20m of an existing wayspot, so I don't want to be wasting a nomination or getting accused of deliberately mislocating a potential wayspot
  • That sort of thing irritates me. Like, don't get me wrong, if they explain why it meets criteria and say there should be a photosphere, or that it can be seen on streetview, to prove it exists, I don't mind but when the supporting statement is literally just: "can be seen on streetview" or even worse "we need more wayspots…
  • You're twisting the criteria around again. Pubs and bars are acceptable IF they actually meet criteria and can be proven to exist. If I submit a pub that's been closed down for three years and isn't opening up again for a long time, I fully expect it to be rejected. At the same time, I will 1* pubs/bars that have terrible…
  • I'm meaning sign as in a wayspot for the park itself, not as a "Welcome To This Park Sign" wayspot
  • @Senmana-ING I tend to 1* pubs/bars that have a very generic or basic description (I.E. local pub/bar, watering hole, does food, etc). I would prefer to see cafes or other community meeting places fo be subbed though.