Neighborhood/community signs to me are markers of an area. You can’t submit the homes, but you can submit the community. You must identify it as a community and this is the label. While the sign is not a destination, it is the marker or map point of your destination to gather with friends and family. It is on publicly accessible ground identifying you have reached your gathering location. That makes it a location sign of great significance. You can’t nominate the the open field of a park, but you can nominate the park sign on the edge. To me community/apartment signs are the same thing. It is the sign marking the location of the gathering place within the apartment complex or housing community or neighborhood. They are eligible as a park sign would be.
There is a difference between a park sign and a neighbourhood sign
A park sign is used as a proxy for the park, which is an area specifically intended for exercise and socialising
A neighbourhood sign doesn’t work as a proxy for the neighbourhood, as this is not an area specifically intended for exercise and socialising. Being able to walk and meet people is not sufficient, otherwise pavements/sidewalks would be wayspots.
The neighbourhood sign has to stand on its own merits, unless you can explain how it proxies for something that meets criteria.
Do you not gather or socialize in a home? While you may not exercise as you would in a park, it is a gathering and socializing place. Then with this, the neighborhood sign would also serve as a “proxy sign” just like a park would. It is an unfenced area like a park that people use to gather and socialize at certain areas just like you would at a picnic table within a park that also typically unfenced. The sign is to signify the “enclosed” area whether it is a park, neighborhood, apartment complex or housing community.
A sign cannot be a proxy for a single-family private residence property (SFPRP). SFPRP are strictly ineligible.
The area around neighbourhood signs is not somewhere people gather and socialise at.
Neighbourhood signs do not encourage socialisation or exercise.
A park sign alone does not encourage a person to exercise. It labels an area that is for gathering and socializing. This area encourages exercise in some locations within the boundaries such as a playground. A neighborhood/community sign identifies a location to gather and socialize within the boundaries. Some specific areas (playgrounds) encourage exercise. The specific sign most often in my local area is in a public place (not in a front yard) that people can meet and socialize at. It labels the enclosed area (like a park) that gathering, socializing and in some cases, exercise takes place. The same activities take place in the same location areas marked by a neighborhood/community sign. The only difference is there might be walls, but the walls are not the POI. The sign identifying the location is the POI suggesting the possible activities found within the boundaries just like a park sign. Free will dictates the actual activities taking place in the area within the sign’s boundry.
A park entrance sign is a proxy for the park, which is where place where people exercise and socialise. They don’t do it at the sign itself and don’t need to.
A neighbourhood sign does not make a good proxy for the neighbourhood itself, because “a neighbourhood” is not a suitable POI for a wayspot. The area around the sign is not a place where people exercise and socialise.
So this means a sign for a park is a “proxy” for an area that signifies gathering, socializing and exercising but a sign for a neighborhood can’t be a “proxy” because a neighborhood is not a place to gather, socialize or exercise? Do you not gather or socialize in your home? Do you not exercise by walking/running around your neighborhood? I still see no difference other than the label of the type of location. The same activities happen in both.
Anything on SFPRP is not eligible to be a wayspot. Anything you do in a private property is irrelevant and cannot make something eligible to be a wayspot.
A park is specifically aimed at exercising and socialising.
A neighbourhood is not. A neighbourhood is not eligible on the basis that people walking and run and socialise on it.
A sidewalk is not. A sidewalk is not eligible on the basis that people walking and run and socialise on it.
Being able to exercise and socialise somewhere is not sufficient for wayspot eligibility.
Welcome to the forum,
What criteria of a great place for exercise, exploration, or being social does a sign indicating that homes are for sale there meet? What criteria does a collection of houses meet if it is not about the sign, but the subdivision?
saw this after i typed my other comment. i completely disagree, but you answered.
A neighborhood sign is not personal property (guessing at what SFPRP means). It is located on public space to mark the boundary of a neighborhood. This is in the same way a park sign marks the boundary of a park. Your statements suggest that anything within the boundary of a neighborhood is ineligible because a neighborhood with public spaces and sidewalks is private property. This would also mean street art, little libraries and community boards are also not acceptable. My only point is the sign marks the location that gathering, socializing and exercise is likely just like it is likely in a park withing the boundaries.
You are either being deliberately disingenuous or missing the point spectactuarly.
I have not said that neighbourhoods cannot contain eligible wayspots, but that the neighbourhood itself is not eligible to be a wayspot and that the neighbourhood sign is not eligible to be a wayspot on the basis of being a proxy for the neighbourhood. It has to stand on its own merits, not on what is near to it.
I don’t see anything on this that a collection of living places (homes or apartments) would meet:
https://niantic.helpshift.com/hc/en/21-wayfarer/faq/2770-eligibility-criteria/
In that sense a park sign would also be ineligible as it is not a place to actually gather, socialize or exercise at but a proxy for the location bordering it where those activities take place. I believe your are missing the similarities in the types of locations each sign identifies. All of the qualifying actives can take place in both, but one is disqualified because private property is contained on portions of one of them.
I see your points but they do not invalidate a community (short for all the other areas of personal residences) as being able to encourage the same activities as a park does. The only difference is how each area the activates take place are restricted. Does a playground within a park differ from a playground in a community if both are separated by a fence suggesting limited access? Is the land at both locations owned by a company/government and allow public access? If both are true would not the larger land mass sign, park and community signs, that identifies both locations be treated equal?
Your logic suggests that the presence of individual homes invalidates the sign’s meaning. Gathering, socialization and exercise can take place within the boundaries the same a in a park.
Your logic says I can explore the private homes the same way I can explore the park, and that is a false equivalence.
Playgrounds in urban areas make very good wayspots, unless it is a swing on someone’s private property. It doesn’t matter if the playground is in a park, on a green space or anything else - the playground is eligible as a playground.
The reason park signs are used as proxies is because wayspots need a focus. It is very hard to take a photo of a park and say this exact spot represents the park. Why that spot and not another one?
Having a proxy such as a sign or entrance solves that problem.
That list is missing a ton of eligible POIs. Sticking to that list my large city would lose 90% of our POIs. This is including 100+ neighborhood/community/ apartment signs. We would also lose a lot of the generic bike signs we have and individual locations within their suggested areas.
Hello,
I think it might be helpful to take a step back.
The discussion here is around generalities and the use of some words.
In wayfarer each case needs to be considered individually.
So if you want to discuss the eligibility of a specific estate sign then please do post the details that way we can all discuss if there is merit in it.
Parks are generally good spaces. A park does not require a sign if it can be shown to be a space designed and maintained as a park.
I see no value in trying to compare parks to Estate signs. They are different things.