Advice on what to improve on this POI’s, since they were rejected

What to improve on this particular POI’s since they were rejected

  1. Passero tourist farmhouse inn - Tešanivci, Slovenia

This particular POI was rejected as generic business!? It can be clearly seen that its touristic farmhouse, with home made products, specifically it inclueds Chocolateer shop with home made shop. There is also as stated a farmhouse inn for visiting tourist, small coffee house and they also serve local cousin (Prekmurje!) and drinks.

Here is a small excerpt rom their paga: “ The Passero estate in Tešanovice is an attractive destination for discovering Prekmurje cuisine. We have been managing our land with heart and soul for several generations. In the family, we combine the knowledge of winemaking, meat and pumpkin processing, and the art of chocolate making. Together, we take care of the quality offer of Prekmurje delicacies and the well-being of our guests.”

  1. Old water tower - Rédics, Hungary

Temporary/sesonal or not distinct as rejection? Its a water tower and old one, all rusted, so in that sense even has historical value

  1. Gazebo with electrical bike rental and bike repair station

Rejection criteria: generic business?

It’s modern gazebo with e-bike rental and repair station for bikes on a bike trail. In fact it’s one of possible starting points on that new bike trail which helps by sightseeing Lendava town and its surrounding.

This 3 POI are high candidates for potential Ingress POI’s and their rejection is puzzling.

So, again, can someone add ideas of improvement or their opinions as to why to reject them. Serious and explained rejection opinions pleas, same for improvment advices.

It does look like a generic sign, not being very distinct, so I can see it being rejected as a generic business, which it isn’t. The sign is actually advertising the different things offered by this business, not individual generic businesses.

I would suggest taking a main photo with the building in the background, like this from Google Street View.

For the supporting photo, I would take an expanded view of the sign and building with the east in the background instead of the west.

I also see that per Google Maps and the shop’s website, their name is Posestvo Passero, so may want to consider using that as the title instead of just Passero.

I would also include the shop’s website in the supporting info,, as it will help note that it is a local gift shop, chocolate maker, vineyard, inn, etc. The description could be improved upon as well, although it’s not bad; it just could be a little more descriptive.

Hope this helps!


If the gazebo is basically a shelter just for the bikes then that won’t work. However if it is a resting area preferably with some benches that cyclists would meet up at and socialise then that would count.
The fact that it is modern I don’t think matters, and in this case it makes it sound ordinary I think. It is about the function of the place.


Hallo Zusammen. Auch in meinem Fall, was für Wanderwege und Wanderrouten steht, wurde in 2 Fällen auch abgelehnt. Anbei Bilder mit Beschreibung. Bitte um Mithilfe der Community

Auch hier in diesem Fall wurde der Pokestop der einen Wanderweg / Wanderroute darstellt abgelehnt. Auch mit einem wie ich es nenne " Verschwendetem Upgrade" wurde es als Bauernhof oder Schlechte Bildqualität dargestellt. Wenn ich etwas überlesen haben sollte, kann ich mich doch Recht daran erinnern, dass Wanderwege oder Wanderrouten als Wayspots gerne gesehen sind. Da im Ländlichem Raum sehr viele Strecken und Routen es gibt kann ich mit sehr vielen Infos und Bildern da gerne Weiterhelfen. Ich hoffe auf die Unterstützung der Community und auf einen gemeinsamen Lösungsweg.

Hi, kann man auf deinem Zusatzbild überhaupt das Schild sehen? Auf dem Screenshot ist es sehr schwer zu erkennen.
Ich würde die Beschreibung weniger vage machen und die Wanderwege auch wirklich aufzählen.
Weblinks zu den Wanderwegen dürfen in die Zusatzinformation, das ist nicht verboten

1 Like

Die Information in deiner Zusatzinformation gehört in die Beschreibung. Wenn das zum Ortsjubiläum gehört, darfst du das auch gerne da reinschreiben

1 Like

With respect to 1., I would also nominate the inn/restaurant itself and not the sign, or be clear in your nomination that the restaurant is what is being nominated. Be aware that businesses are still considered difficult and that it might be best to include links to your claims regarding the uniqueness of the place.

Regarding 2. I would make sure the water tower does not have restricted access and would double check if this one meets criteria, and regarding 3. I would avoid misrepresenting a bike shelter as a gazebo, that’s not what a gazebo is.

1 Like

Thank you! It certainly helps and also proofs my thinking this is legit POI. However I would like to clarify additional matter, namely, can you actually add links. Thought you can not do that.

1 Like

You can out links in the supplementary information text.


On submission 1 I would agree with @DTrain2002 and @Xenopus. Try a different photo of the entire building not just the sign, give more background on it. If it is a Chocolateer shop, do they do tours, exhibitions etc, give some history on the building.

On Submission 2, check out @Xenopus suggestion about if it is restricted. It is definitely distinct as you could hardly miss that if you were passing by it.

On submission 3, I would forget the gazebo part and enter it more on the bicycle repair station side. The big wrench :wrench: stands out in the picture. We don’t have any as nice as this over here but I have seen them pass before. It is in aid in exercise which one of the ambassadors might be able to clarify if it is acceptable. I don’t think I have had one of them to review but my take on it would be if you are out cycling and break a chain or get a puncture this site would be an aid and possibly ok under exercise.

@Xenopus @elijustrying could you give your opinion on that?


It’s advice, it’s not binding arbitration :wink: But since you’re asking:

Locally, bike rentals/shelters/repair stations are extremely common and I would personally be hesitant to approve one. But this is if I’m reviewing at home, ultimately it’s up to the local community whether they consider it an unusual enough thing that is worth checking out (within criteria of course). If this were more of a rest/picnic area then I would lean more heavily into the social aspect when submitting as @elijustrying suggested above (I only see rental - multiple identical bikes - and repair in the photo though, and generally rental means there is a whole network of such stations throughout the town/region). And again it would need to be presented as a rental/repair station in the nomination text, not as something it is not.

1 Like

It is not for an an Ambo to give a ruling on absolutes in terms of criteria :upside_down_face:…but I can give my thoughts :thinking:

I don’t see a bike repair place as meeting criteria. You would only go there if you had a problem such as puncture and to perform a task.
It feels like a drinking water fountain ( the human equivalent :thinking:) - a useful object but not a place that meets criteria.
Likewise a place simply to park a bike is a simple routine function.
If it was a place to rest, meet up and socialise with benches maybe a table then that is different.


Apologies for the use of the word “clarify” I did state at the bottom your opinion though. Meant Niantic Rep. When I said clarify and was asking your opinions on how you saw them in the bottom line.

That’s why I asked, never seen something like this in review nor have I come across anything like it in everyday life.(With the full shelter and such) Usually it is just a bike rack kind of thing.

I have seen a few of them passed which is why I asked as I would see it as an aid to exercise. I see your point about benching though. Maybe they are present at that site but weren’t shown.

I know the only repair station I know of does actually have a bench beside it so you can sit while you repair.

Anyhow was just curious. Thanks for giving your opinion on it. :+1:


Of course, I love discussing those things and giving my opinion, just wanted it to be abundantly clear that ultimately criteria and eligibility decisions are made by Niantic, and that no one in this thread works for Niantic :slight_smile:
I’m sure there are many other types of POI in your area that I’m not familiar with, but yeah locally I see this in review (and in the street) pretty frequently. This is why those things have nuances and have to be considered in their context etc etc :slight_smile:

1 Like

1st Side Note: Eligible Yes. Good POI: No
People tend to use phrase Eligible as question for good/not good POI. Not the same. Almost anything in Eligible (except banned list) but only things that a good place to gather/socialize or exercise or explore make an eligible spot into a good wayspot.

A baseball field is almost an auto accept. If all you had to do sell baseball equipment then pretty much every Walmarts would be a POI.

It is different to sell equipment to exercise, and to sell on site exercise. Bowling Alleys, Gyms, Skating Rinks, Rock-Climbing Walls, all sell access to exercising on site and make good POIs.

Now a bike shop if its rare enough might count under explore. Or if its a focus/hub of where say a biking club meets to go on weekly rides socialize.

  1. Yeah I am quite aware of difficulties of nominating businesses and inn/restaurants. Guess I didn’t make it clear enough that this is tourist farmhouse inn, restaurant and home made chocolate gift shop. Quite famous around here as they make chocolate of quite exotic flavor’s, like added pumpkin seeds and such.
  2. All right I can agree with the tower being kind of behind fence, but all is right next to local road. Also, regarding restricted access, some POI’s can be inside restricted zones, which are accessible only by subset of people.
    Admittedly, this POI is in fact kind of in grey area, regarding if it should be one or not. Still, let me quote Niantic own criteria:

" These locations are appropriate:
Any location that is accessible publicly to pedestrians, both indoors and outdoors, is appropriate, including the following locations:

a. Restricted - locations that restrict access to a subset of people (Gated community or members-only locations, military bases)
b. Ticketed - locations that require a ticket to access like theme parks, museums that require a ticket to enter
c. Businesses - indoor locations and businesses with items for purchase"

So, how does one decide if this tower isn’t in such area? Also as said, its right next to public road.

  1. Agree with you, tho it may be bike shelter but its also a place where people gatter to borrow e-bikes and start local tours. In the end its also a grey POI

Hello again, thanks for sparking this constructive discussion :slight_smile:

Regarding 2., like I said this is my take, but: the rule regarding restricted access does not supercede the rule on not impeding operations or encouraging to trespass.

Because if we apply the restricted access rule to the extreme, we end up with “it’s ok to nominate things on the assembly floor of Boeing or inside a nuclear power plant because some people have access”, which is surely not right. “A subset of the general public with access to a location that otherwise meets criteria” (playground in a gated community, park with sculptures on company grounds, gym on military base that is accessible to families living on base, hours-restricted visits to museums, members sports clubs) is not quite the same as “critical infrastructure, places where someone without proper training might get stuck or injured, things that will make you end up on a government watchlist”.

Whether a water tower hits the “obstructs operations” rule can maybe vary on a case to case basis, but I know that in some countries/areas they are indeed restricted critical infrastructure. Generally this means access to the perimeter is not safe and it might be problematic to have a wayspot that you should be able to touch there. On the other hand, in other countries I have reviewed some cool ones that hold visits or that have murals intended to be viewed by the community painted on them, which both suggests eligibility and puts them into the “intended to be visited by the general public” category.

Note that I am not even starting on eligibility here - this is also very much on a case to case basis :slight_smile: I hope this helps show how I think about this, though.

PS: right next to a road doesn’t matter, the question would be “are you able to touch the object without getting arrested”.

Not quite the way I’d quote it because Famous Artwork is often roped/untouchable but is explore worthy

I’m not quite sure I agree with this quote exactly either. My understanding doesn’t require just guests/people, employee only places qualify as eligible, A break room at Boeing Factory with say a model Boeing 747, might make a great POI, even if the only people that can access the break room is the Boeing 747 employees.

I think though what you are talking about on the factory floor itself, might be more apt to ineligible for safety concerns. Even if the employee has right to be there, it wouldn’t be safe for them to be stopping and touching the POI any more than a POI in the middle of a public road would be.
Safety as well as disrupting services are on Banned List.

Actually you are talking about Eligibility. That’s the whole take on your post. You are going through the logic of whether that water tower is even eligible or on the banned list… What you aren’t talking about is whether it makes a Good Waypoint for Socializing, Exploring, or Exercising

I have the absolute worst takes, I know.

I agree, but think it’s quite easy to see the difference and the distance when comparing to a “keep out” type of fencing :slight_smile:

Absolutely, where do we disagree?

This may be a difference in vocabulary (I am not a native English speaker by any remote stretch of the imagination), but what I call eligible is what meets eligibility criteria, those three you quote, as described on the Wayfarer website. Whereas in my post I mostly discussed which acceptance criteria which types of towers or industrial sites could meet (safe access, etc) and maybe some rejection ones (obstructs operations). So I’m pretty sure I didn’t talk about eligibility very much, except for the part where I mentioned water towers with murals or visits.
Screenshot 2024-04-29 at 19.17.45